• H-influenzae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lily32241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The two users have long been involved in policy-based disputes on the topic of Styles. Both have canvassed, myself being who one of them notified.[1][2][3] I'm not sure whether this was done appropriately, so I did not edit the article, but I did notice that the issues with H-influenzae's previous edits have continued (e.g., the "legacy" section is full of text that violates NPOV by being either unsupported by the cited sources or irrelevant based on how the sources don't mention the dress at all). These violations have continued since this discussion about Styles's sexual orientation, in which H-influenzae said that Wikipedia has made a distinctly political choice when deciding what counts as "out" that in my personal opinion is harmful and invasive. They never seemed to understood the errors in their policy interpretations even after every other user had intimated that Wikipedia includes that a subject is out when sources say they're out. They received a block in May, during which the administrator said H-influenzae persist in misunderstanding editorial policy, or disregarding it entirely. While H-influenzae seems receptive to listening to Lily32241's concerns, this summary referencing the commentary queer people made about Styles during the controversy shows they still have a skewed understanding of NPOV. The article does not regard these comments as responses to a controversy, and the sources don't group these commenters together as the article suggests (i.e., a group of some queer people of color. KyleJoan^talk 14:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of bring this here myself. H-influenzae doesn't seem to understand our need for sources directly citing his text - interpreting a book cover shown in a source is an example of this. I believe either a block, partial or full, or an AE topic ban may be appropriate here but want other opinions. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

User Lily32241 almost entirely edits sections about Styles' sexuality, and does not add any articles to Wikipedia whatsoever. She follows me around on all of my pages, deleting at many points true quotes if she feels they are controversial or, in my opinion, if they are too gay. KyleJoan has also been confronted by administrators in the past for accusing me of activism simply for making Styles' sexuality section more neutral. Unfortunately this has been deleted and I am not experienced enough to dig it up.

Here are some examples of many of Lily fighting specifically about Styles' sexuality, and erasing literally things he has said or just being quite frankly weird.

Larries "he never said he experienced sexual shame and the cleanliness clause mention is taken out of context"

Harry Styles "Wikipedia is for facts, not for opinions. If you think his statements were offensive to the queer community that doesn't mean you get to change them"

Starfox (comics) [Styles plays Starfox in a movie, and in the comics the character is pansexual. "Please stop. That article is purely speculative and the only one there is. Loki and Valkyrie are confirmed bisexuals but they don't have sexuality sections" H-influenzae (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am really doing my best to create neutral pages for Styles and I apologize if I am not always doing it right, but when topics are politically charged it is not always possible to be "neutral" and I do not think the way Lily is editing is neutral whatsoever. She is following me around and it's really weird, and creeping me out. I know life isn't fair but given that she literally just spot edits and I make pages it seems kind of obvious to me who is trying to contribute to wikipedia and who seems to have some sort of weird agenda. H-influenzae (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is at least the beginning of the thread where KyleJoans incredulously calls me an "LGBTQ activist" for removing a sentence that said "Styles sexuality has long been a topic of speculation." H-influenzae (talk) 14:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is the full report containing the accusation H-influenzae referenced in case any user would like to determine its relevance. KyleJoan^talk 14:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Since this date I have made extensive edits to Styles fashion, public image, music, conspiracy theories surrounding him, etc. Stuff nobody has added to Wikipedia for years. Lily just constantly deletes things. I really am begging to not be banned, because I want there to be more content about Styles on Wikipedia. I will bargain to just try to avoid "controversial" topics if people really want - I wouldn't have made the dress article at all if Lily hadn't suggested I do so with a kind of weird attitude on Styles' page.

But I really am begging, please do not ban me, I really want to continue making articles on Wikipedia. H-influenzae (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a list of topics on my page even that I would like to create, and most of them are very uncontroversial. Probably the most controversial one would be Harry Lambert, and if KyleJoan wants to literally review the article himself once I am done he can, the draft is here. But imo I am a good editor and I am unfairly criticized as not neutral simply because I talk about topics Lily and KyleJoan on this website do not like. H-influenzae (talk) 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what this response means, but I will say that H-influenzae has repeatedly suggested that (at least some of) the opposition to their edits has been politically motivated. KyleJoan^talk 14:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not my fault that conversations on sexuality and race are not considered "neutral" that would be the fault of society. H-influenzae (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@KyleJoan Have removed the paragraph about representation in the dress article in the Legacy section. I have also edited slightly the paragraph about Porter, Vaid-Menon, and Lil Nas X. H-influenzae (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Lily removed all mentions of race from the article. I can put more direct quotes in if you want. I find it strange that yesterday an editor who didnt frequent Harry Styles looked at the page and gave it an award, but then two people who have been bothered by me for months suddenly take issue with the page and are fighting tooth and nail to remove references to sexuality and race in it. H-influenzae (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That would be User:Premeditated Chaos. @H-influenzae who are the two people who have been bothering you? By the way, you've used Page Six which is the New York Post, an unreliable source. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The two users who are bothering me are KyleJoan here who has been angry with me ever since I changed the paragraph on Styles' sexuality to be, imo, less insulting last December and Lily32241 who follows me around and messes with all of my pages to remove references to any topics she seems to find are icky. Lily32241 this morning posted to KyleJoan's talk page to report me to an admin I think because she understood he does not like me. Partly I believe this is also due to me removing a photo of hers that had a watermark as Styles' profile picture several days ago. It's honestly super uncomfortable - there weren't even references to Styles' sexual orientation on the page until 2019, when KyleJoan added a rather rude paragraph in. I am a huge fan of Styles myself and I find myself disturbed by what has been happening to me in the past months. H-influenzae (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware PageSix is unreliable, I was trying to use it to show that the article became notorious so that's why I specified it was a tabloid in the sentence where I used it. If that's not appropriate, my apologies. H-influenzae (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The last time I was temporarily banned from Styles' page, I was trying to remove a quote that said "I'm pretty sure I'm not bisexual," which was something he said 9 years ago while cornered, and which was not considered relevant for most of his time as a public figure, especially since he has not labeled his sexuality since 2017. I was trying to remove it because it would come up as a google featured quote which I thought was extremely unfair considering it's not even the most recent information. Since I have had access to the page again I have never removed the offending quote and have not debated that treatment even though imo it is unfair both to me and to Styles to have that displayed forever. I have been doing my best to contribute to Wikipedia and to expand knowledge about both Styles and many other topics. H-influenzae (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I happened to see the dress article because I got a notification that someone had linked from it to an article I had written. I skimmed it in brief, thought it looked pretty good, and figured I'd be encouraging toward someone working in fashion as a topic area. I had no idea there was any negative history with this user and Harry Styles as a topic. The barnstar isn't intended to be a blanket endorsement of any content from that article that may be improperly sourced or otherwise poor, nor of the recipient's behavior if it is indeed problematic. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Because the things you've listed do not relate to the topic. Writing that "As of July 2022, no other man has been on the cover of American Vogue by himself." is factually true but not adding anything. You just brought taht up because you thought of it. There are no sources connecting the covers of people of colour that you've listed to Harry's cover and a debate about race. Lily32241 (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You are uneducated, or in denial. There are dozens of articles about race and this issue. I should not have to cite all of them to get the point across, but if you want me to spend hours doing so I'm happy to do it. H-influenzae (talk) 15:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@H-influenzae again, who are the "two people who have been bothered by me for months" - I'm guessing you don't actually mean you've been bothering two people. But presuming Lily is one, I don't see the second. Doug Weller talk 15:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

KyleJoan has been bothering me for months. He doesn't like that I edited his paragraph about Styles' sexuality last December, and sometimes picks fights with me like this one. He is the only person who reports me to administrators, I have good relationships with other editors on this site besides KyleJoan and Lily. H-influenzae (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I recognize I am not perfect and I am still learning the ropes sometimes but I genuinely believe these two editors do not like me, I don't really have problems with other people even when there are disagreements over editing. I really genuinely care about adding valuable content to the site. H-influenzae (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Your contributions are those of someone writing articles or blog posts. There may be dozens of articles on the race topic but if no one made a connection between them and Harry's dress or cover then they don't belong in the article. Lily32241 (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This is false and a very strange accusation. H-influenzae (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering the fact that you have been chastised for disruptive editing related to adding false content to articles before and lost many times, and the fact that the article on the dress has many, many sources, and the fact that you have never written an article yourself and mostly delete other people's contributions, I find your accusation to not only be incorrect and a little insulting, but also coming from a place of no experience to say whether or not I am writing a "blog post." Why are you never accusing other editors of writing "blog posts," only me? H-influenzae (talk) 16:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I had problems with adding boxscore data from pollstar because it's behind a paywall and hard to link to the page directly. But it's been solved and none of the content I added was false. Lily32241 (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not fight you on this point because I was exhausted and didn't want to edit the page anymore but another example is when you followed me to the Larries page and removed a cited sentence about Styles saying he experienced sexual shame. This is also false. There is tons of evidence to believe that besides small edits to charts you are a single issue editor whose goal is to minimize the place that Styles has in discussions about queerness. Whether you like it or not (and hell, whether I like what people have to say - many of the opinions I myself have shared in my articles I disagree with) he has a place in these conversations, a place that many other androgynous and sexually ambiguous (and white) celebrities have existed in throughout pop culture history. I don't understand why it is almost your sole prerogative to minimize this on the site, but it is genuinely getting in the way of educating people about Styles' place in the culture. H-influenzae (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The context in which you tried to use the quote is the problem. Lily32241 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a lot of trouble believing that this is what you actually care about considering the fact that the scope of your edits is very limited. Why not add more to the Larries page? Why only edit statements regarding his sexuality and how he feels about sex, and no other content? Why follow my pages around? I recognize that when starting out on WP it can be tempting to fixate on one issue, especially a contested figure like Styles, but you've been an editor on the site for almost three years. H-influenzae (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one with a fixation. Lily32241 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would believe that you weren't if in the past three years you had ever:

-created your own Wikipedia pages about Styles or any other topic

-significantly fleshed out any Wikipedia pages about Styles or any other topic

-edited a diverse array of topics, including topics unrelated to Styles

-created a profile page for yourself detailing what your editing interests and experiences are

-not fixated on an extremely narrow set of issues

-not spent most of your time deleting the work of others related to queer topics, no matter how tangential they are to Styles

It's truly wild to me that there are so many Harry Styles related topics alone that you could write about and flesh out on Wikipedia and this is what you choose to focus on. Who he sleeps with, really? Not his work? Not the conversations surrounding him? H-influenzae (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I read a ton of articles for this page, and for other pages I've made, some of which said things that I felt were really actively cruel about Styles. And to keep NPOV I feature these articles anyway because I genuinely want to educate people about how he's seen and what people are saying so they can make up their own minds. Does that make me comfortable? No, some of the things that were said honestly made me feel a little sick, but sometimes articles are going to feature things that make you uncomfortable to give people a fair understanding of what happened. H-influenzae (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lily32241 Out of respect to your work, by the way, I replaced at least some of your edits that didn't have to do with removing the conversations about privilege, sexuality, and race. I don't disrespect you as an editor if that is something you genuinely aspire to be, I myself am still learning. You can go look at what I put back in, and look at my justifications for what I kept, not all of your work went to waste. H-influenzae (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for H-influenzae[edit]

At the very least, I would suggest that H-influenzae, who appears to be most at blame here, is WP:TBAN topic banned from editing any article about or connected to Harry Styles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 17:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC) Edit: Oppose For clarity, I have developed some faith that H-i has the potential to become a good editor during this conversation and my proposal should not be taken as a support for this option. However, striking the proposal would only cause confusion, so I'll leave it in its original state.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

How am I most at blame for creating a good article and then disliking when someone took out mentions of discussions of queerness and race? I even edited back in some of Lily32241's edits this morning.

Why does a single issue editor have more sway here than someone who actually makes pages?

H-influenzae (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

You can look at the article history and see that I took stuff out that people thought was contentious: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue_Gucci_dress_of_Harry_Styles&action=history H-influenzae (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The fundamental problem is that you don't appear to understand how Wikipedia works... that it is a collaborative effort and you do not WP:OWN articles regardless of how much of its content can be traced to your hand. That's a concept that you gradually learn. Wikipedia is also not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS... however unjustly heteronormative you might see a contrary opinion to yours, you absolutely must discuss content and gain WP:CONSENSUS. Find the common ground... As far as I'm concerned, the article should be merged to Harry styles and could probably be covered in a couple of sentences, but I'm insufficiently interested to worry about it. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 18:36, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally I never considered creating an article on the topic until Lily32241 suggested I not talk about the controversy on the main page. Nevertheless, Porter's gown gets its own page so I think Styles' should too. I'm not going to edit it anymore, I would love if someone would bring it to committee for GA because it was suggested it could get there but I don't want to work on it if people who already doing like me are going to make it a constant battle.

If I need to be banned so be it. I personally am going to choose to cut ties with this account & start clean elsewhere editing less controversial things as I think I got off on the wrong foot with some editors starting out too aggressively and it's been a struggle ever since. The dress suggestion is the last time I will take a suggestion for sure. H-influenzae (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a great way to get blocked for sock puppetry. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not planning on sock puppeting whatsoever. This account is retired. I'm concerned no matter what I edit these two editors are going to follow me around, and I would rather that not happen. I don't wish to prove my worth editing in other places, I would rather start clean editing topics fewer people care about. H-influenzae (talk) 18:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If you are banned or otherwise about to be sanctioned and decide to WP:CLEANSTART, that's not a clean start. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, apologies then. I will clean start after my ban ends. H-influenzae (talk) 19:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Will I be notified of the length of the ban? Do I have a set number of appropriate edits I have to make before I become unbanned & can cleanstart? H-influenzae (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to keep these two editors from following me around & create some sort of middle ground? I feel like as long as I am on this website they are going to dislike me. I don't want to be kept from editing but I'm concerned that I will just be bothered no matter what I do. H-influenzae (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue here is not the other editors behavior...you need to reflect on that because your responses here are indicating a much larger problem than the initial filing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I will, thanks. H-influenzae (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I am still learning so on other websites it has been generally accepted that you can just start clean and stay away from other people you've had conflict with. I am not trying to have conflict with people. H-influenzae (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• ’’’Support TB’’’, this will give the editor a chance to show that they can edit in other areas following our policies and guidelines. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am pretty sure these users stalk my contribs so I appreciate the opportunity to be given a chance but I will not be using this account anymore & will be avoiding related topics anyway. H-influenzae (talk) 18:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your fairness in arbitration. H-influenzae (talk) 19:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  What is classified under the Harry Styles topic? H-influenzae (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Anything Harry Styles related. His article, all lists related to him, all song and album articles, their talk pages, even editing about him at all. Which is why I opposed the TB. I think it's harsh to ban an editor from their main interest when a slap on the wrist/warning will do. If it doesn't? A block will suffice. If anything, I think a gender-and-sexuality related sanction would be more effective, which would allow you to edit constructively about Harry Styles without the "hetero-normative" troubles. —VersaceSpace 🌃 23:10, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I would be perfectly happy to agree to that, provided that it was clear to other users that it did not exclude making articles about queer people generally which would effectively ban me from making and editing many of the pages I want to make and edit anyway as most of Harry’s fashion and music collaborators are LGBT of some kind. Otherwise it would effectively be banning me from page creation and editing except for the small number of straight people he has worked with. H-influenzae (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support indef topic ban if not an outright block, at minimum given their creation of Blue Gucci dress of Harry Styles following this exact discussion. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Surely indefinite is a little extreme? Lily32241 has been scolded many more times than me, and made far fewer pages, and has never been article or topic banned even once. H-influenzae (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  Responding and badgering every person here is doing you no favors. PRAXIDICAE🌈 21:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't understand what I am supposed to do in this situation, other than reply to people? They don't give you a rule book for when you're dragged to public arbitration. H-influenzae (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  @H-influenzae indefinite means just that, it's not permanent and you would be able to appeal at some point. Doug Weller talk 10:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Styles has like three careers, it is going to be almost impossible for me to write about music, film, or fashion without someone coming to argue I am overstepping my ban, which currently nobody is even explaining what I am going to be topic banned FOR. Nobody seems to be reading the page, or caring what was reverted or put back, but instead seems fixated on things I did months ago and suggestions that my idea that people follow me around is insane and makes me feel creeped out. Wikipedia:HOUND is very much a thing that exists & Lily is a disruptive editor which is why I reverted all her edits on the page in the first place. She is not only disruptive about his sexuality but about basic facts on the website, and she uploads watermarked photos to his page. I don’t care if someone edits the dress page, I care that Lily came to it and tried to reframe the controversy to not have anything to do with race, and to remove many parts of the controversy where queer people criticized Styles. I woke up to 14,000 edits removing charged content from an article by a person who just a few days ago was edit warring a watermarked photo and decided it was vandalism.H-influenzae (talk) 10:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  It feels quite a lot like this arbitration is taking so long solely to try and wear me down and make me get increasingly emotional for daring to say the words racism or harassment, and it has honestly felt from day one that people do not want me on this website at all. Everywhere I turn someone is opining that I need to assume good faith with an editor who often has an extensive history of misbehavior. It is really difficult to edit basic things on the Harry Styles page in the first place because even though much of it until recently was three years or more out of date, people’s edits would be reverted. His core collaborators get removed all the time, and new editors on the page are bullied away. This probably wouldn’t happen if Styles had a dedicated wiki project but since he doesn’t it seems like often the people who edit his page treat him with disdain, misquote him, upload strange images, and are generally hostile. I have known other people who are a fan of his who have attempted to edit the page with his band members names or something and become established only to get three times reverted by KyleJoan, who has openly suggested Styles is queerbaiting on the talk page, which was a popular argument two years ago that has since become fringe. H-influenzae (talk) 10:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. H-influenzae has been at this for a few months now, but I think they're self-aware enough to pick up what has been put down. That is, they need to completely cut it out with the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS mentality as it relates to Harry Styles. The user's contributions otherwise have been fine. This should be a final warning. If this returns, the user can be blocked, but right now that, or even a sanction, is entirely too much. —VersaceSpace 🌃 22:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I was reading about indefinite total bans and I guess I am confused about why something so extreme is being suggested for me when it seems like they are supposed to be rare. I don't even really understand what RIGHTGREATWRONGS I'm doing because I don't think that the article that was being arbited was righting great wrongs - I actually felt like in that article it was necessary to include a lot of stuff I disagreed with, much of which Lily was removing this morning. It seems kind of messed up to be arbited all day for content I didn't even like putting in the article, because I felt it was inappropriate to remove the voices of marginalized people from it in the way that I felt the editor was trying to do. I would much rather everyone had just loved the dress!!! H-influenzae (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Reading this detailed note, it's disappointing that some (if not most) of the reasoning that administrator outlined when partially blocking H-influenzae remain applicable to H-influenzae's conduct today. I disagree that H-influenzae has displayed enough self-awareness to just receive another warning. They had been asked to reflect on the fact that they can't seem to accept that your fellow editors are acting in good faith and how they are increasingly tendentious despite your politeness before they called another user uneducated, or in denial in this report. KyleJoan^talk 23:24, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am genuinely confused about what right great wrongs thing I’m doing here. I don’t even agree with the people that Lily deleted from the article, this is the most maddening part! I think that a lot of their opinions are reprehensible but was doing my best to represent them anyway. H-influenzae (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  The fact that I disagree with pretty much every queer commentator about Styles’ appearance in Vogue and yet I have had to be argue that it’s still right for them to be in the article anyway to give a balanced look at the issue has been a deeply degrading experience. I hated reading those articles and I have hated defending their inclusion. H-influenzae (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, Lily WAS wrong that there's no articles about race and the Vogue profile. Here's several if you would like an extremely miserable read. H-influenzae (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment The statement above about clean starts [4] was slightly worrying, but this earlier statment [5] is more clear in intent: "And if this account is eventually taken down for "vandalism" on this, all for trying to ensure that the most visible sexually fluid public figure is given the decency of acknowledging that, I will make new accounts and continue to insist on this for years if I have to." Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  It seems to me that my current “crime” has not been litigated for like 12 hours but things I said many months ago. Can someone please tell me what I am being sanctioned for exactly, other than being rude to administrators when someone came to complain about me? I fixed a bunch of stuff that KyleJoan and Lily requested, which nobody seems to be checking, and nobody has been listening to me that these users do not like me and that at least one of them follows me around. I am unsure how I will be unable to be reported in the future if nobody even seems clear on why I am getting banned now, other than when I got dragged into public litigation and said someones behavior was racist, people acted like I committed high treason, and because a few months ago I was rude. It seems as though since I was rude months ago I will now always be watched. H-influenzae (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I also seem to be being litigated for even suggesting I might someday make a new account, even though I do not have any sock puppets. Wikipedia is not friendly to new editors not knowing all of the rules, which are often levied at you in quick succession on day one by an angry person. It is very confusing and there seem to be one million of them, and it feels like experienced editors often cite them to abuse seniority power against new editors. Like, how am I supposed to know that one of the rules is you can’t make a new account if you want to avoid harassment, which is a rule that is buried deep into a page? This is something you can do on every other website, start fresh if you feel people don’t like you. H-influenzae (talk) 11:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Assuming you are being serious, I think we have to consider your competence to edit on Wikipedia. You have been editing tendentiously WP:TE from the start, coming in with an axe to grind, refusing to accept that this is a collaborative platform. You've also indicated that if you don't get your way, your intention is to evade any ban/block by sock puppetry. This isn't a trial, by the way... any sanctions placed will be to prevent further disruption and are not punitive Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am very serious! I think it should be obvious to any of the people who look at my contributions that I really care about being a good editor. I am perfectly competent to edit. Why would I be unserious, and why would I assume this arbitration is not punitive when it has been stretched out for so long, and when the way I should be treated keeps escalating the more I insist that I am being harrassed? H-influenzae (talk) 11:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Topic ban - H needs some time away from this subject to work on something else, and demonstrate they have an understanding of Wikipedia policy & procedure. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose The topic doesn't appear to be the problem. Competence and arrogance is. Editor seems to be gaining clue. Let's WP:TROUT and see what happens.--v/r - TP 18:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal[edit]

H-influenzae is blocked from Wikipedia per WP:CIR Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Is there going to be a point when people just decide what to do with me? Why is this arbitration taking so long? H-influenzae (talk) 11:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I am just surely not important enough for this to be argued over for almost 24 hours. H-influenzae (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. No one editor gets to decide anything except in an emergency context and only temporarily pending further discussion.--v/r - TP 18:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. Incompetence is the inability to understand the basic fundamentals of Wikipedia or the inability to collaborate. This isn't that, this is clearly just a case of someone not knowing our WP:SOCK policy. H, you are not helping your case here. You need to make it clear that you know where you went wrong, what to (not) do in the future and that you understand the linked sock policy. Nobody here wants to punish you; blocks are to prevent future disruption. Even if you've gone wrong before, as long as you're not a sock or haven't done something egregious, you can still promise to do better, it's the best only option you have right now if you want to keep editing normally. —VersaceSpace 🌃 13:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am assuming based upon reading through the conversation that these are potentially what my faults are seen to be:

  -being too aggressive responding to administrators initially

  -perception of ad hominem attacks without better cited evidence

  -threatening socks without understanding policy

  -overturning someone's edits without more thoughtful consideration and a better attitude of assuming good faith and consensus seeking

  It does still feel like all of this is a little politically charged and being dragged out because I used the word racism but I really am not trying to be disruptive. In the future if that would be preferable I will review edits to a page and not jump to ad hominem attacks, or any arguments whatsoever, but will be more committed to a collaborative attitude on the website. It is my perception that these two editors do not like me but perhaps that is just something I will have to live with. We all have to deal with people who don't like us in life, and I am happy to try my best to be as civil as I can in exchange for expanding knowledge on Wikipedia. H-influenzae (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Well, that's a good start. Who you like and don't like and vice versa, really not a concern at all as long as no one attacks anyone personally. Even editors who don't agree with the LGBT community are allowed to edit as long as their beliefs don't interfere with their edits. Do I agree with this? Hell no. But likewise, they do not agree with me, and that's something we both must accept, as bickering over it would be against the Wiki's collaborative spirit. My point is that you don't always get what you want, that's just a part of Wikipedia, and accepting that is a big part of developing a better reputation here. —VersaceSpace 🌃 14:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I will do my best to put my feelings aside in the future and work towards collaboration on Wikipedia. This has been an uphill curve and I have been genuinely trying to learn the rules and get better, and I think I have been, but it is not easy, especially because nobody really sits down with you and tells you how to behave until you are being litigated publicly. The social norms on Wikipedia are much different than the social norms on other parts of the internet, particularly leftist inclined spaces where I spend most of my time. H-influenzae (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  For example on many other parts of the internet if you feel someone is being bigoted you are encouraged to say so, you have the ability to block people you don't like, you don't have to assume good faith, you can make new accounts if you feel like you've messed up, and you aren't expected to for example tolerate anti-LGBT people in the community. I'm not saying that this neutrality stance is necessarily wrong but it's not something I'm used to, it's essentially online resocialization. H-influenzae (talk) 14:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  One of the things you need to bear in mind is this is an encyclopedia based on some fundamental principles that we call the WP:Five pillars (read them, you'll get a lot from it). It is not anti-anything to insist that content is backed up by reliable, authoritative sources WP:RS. In WP:BLP articles particularly, anything that is not backed up in this way needs to go, no matter how firmly we believe them. It's also not okay to use editorial synthesis in the place of reliable sources WP:OR, especially WP:SYNTH. This is something that you've certainly been accused of doing. It can be disheartening when someone removes something that you're proud of, but you must assume good faith and not be tempted to think it's because the other editor dislikes you or what you represent. Most likely you have done something wrong... we all did as new editors.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the Five Pillars information. To note, yesterday I did remove some individual synthesis from the dress article, it was significantly altered. I do really want to be a good editor and when reverts occurred yesterday I went through the article extensively to make it more neutral and to remove what seemed to cause offense. Neither Kyle nor Lily have since been back to the article and, while they certainly could in the future, it appears that my edits yesterday were satisfactory to settle the dispute. In the future I will not so hastily revert and will instead take more time and be more thoughtful about changes. I would hope that someone would not edit pages I've worked on calling them "blog posts" as that does not seem very civil to me but I suppose all I can control is my own behavior. H-influenzae (talk) 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  If I didn't edit the page again, it's because I don't want to get in trouble.

  This line "Despite being on the inside of the magazine, rather than the cover, the second photograph was the one that became the most notorious because it was shared by Vogue's Twitter account on November 13, 2020" and many other things are not okay. There's also the issue of what is relevant enough to the main subject and what is not. Things can be properly sourced but brought up just to support your own point of view. Lily32241 (talk) 15:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  You can go make whatever changes you like, I am avoiding controversy so I will not argue with you and plan to stay away from the page. I have no more power as an editor than you have. H-influenzae (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sorry for responding aggressively to your edits I will AGF in the future. H-influenzae (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I am also happy to run any new articles through approvals rather than just creating them if that would help show that I have the spirit of collaboration in me. I was very excited to not have to do that but if that would be preferable to administrators I would be happy to do it. I would also probably prefer to do it because I think more editors reviewing work related to Styles and other topics I am interested in is better, not worse. The pool of editors with eyes on him is very small. H-influenzae (talk) 13:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Editor seems to be realizing both that they've been a problem and that we have guidelines/policies on how to collaborate.--v/r - TP 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Alternate proposal 2[edit]

H-influenzae is not sanctioned at this point on the understanding that they abide firmly by WP policy and guidelines. Ideally with the help of a mentor. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per basically everything I said above. Open to being a mentor if everyone here agrees I'm experienced enough. If a more seasoned editor wants to mentor, I'll step back. —VersaceSpace 🌃 15:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as I believe that just sweeping this under the rug will leave us dealing with this same problem in short order. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  I promise I will not cause problems and do feel truly sorry for being disruptive H-influenzae (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Editor seems to be realizing both that they've been a problem and that we have guidelines/policies on how to collaborate.--v/r - TP 18:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• I'm going with support on this one VersaceSpace is very generous to offer to mentor H-influenzae and I may offer the odd bit of advice here and there. I don't think any malice was intended and that H-influenzae started running before learning to walk, assuming that WP worked pretty much like social media where he who shouts loudest and longest wins. They also chose a challenging topic to start with and inevitably got caught up in controversy quicker than if they were a huge fan of the Manchester Shipping Canal (although those guys can be rough). I think we could have the makings of a dedicated editor, but there's a bit of work to be done on learning policy... Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:44, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment I'd like to hear H-influenzae briefly explain the policies or guidelines that support this edit before I respond further. KyleJoan^talk 00:23, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SYNTH even though the paragraph was factually accurate and informative no secondary sources connected the paragraph to the topic at hand. Paragraph would fit better perhaps at the Vogue page itself. H-influenzae (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  @KyleJoan I say that with no intent to add the paragraph to the Vogue page itself but just to demonstrate understanding that if it were to go anywhere that would be more appropriate. H-influenzae (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on this response, I neither support nor oppose the proposal. I believe H-influenzae needs to prove they are able to edit constructively around less challenging topics before going back to Styles-related articles. KyleJoan^talk 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Support I, optimistically, think that with mentoring it should work out well. Gusfriend (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to deal with this, which could be both or either. I was going to just revert the edit but decided it wasn't clear that was the right thing to do. --Kent G. Budge (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note Previous discussions in 2018 and 2019, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Freecomwireless. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:13, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
• IP blocked for disruptive editing and probable block evasion. Not a legal threat imv but disruptive nonetheless. All their edits of this nature have been reverted. It's a reminder that this person is still active. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• P.S. Rev del applied by Drmies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

See this contribution.

Please block him from using his talk page. Thank you. Kaseng55 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yamla semi-protected the page, which is pretty much the same as removing the IP's talk page access, but also prevents disruption if they IP hop. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Putting a large amount of copyrighted content into the Fractional-reserve banking article. Please see that article's history, and rev-deletions.

Thank you!! ---Avatar317^(talk) 00:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317, I have revdel’d the offending text. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

They are being disruptive. Last ANI for reference.

• Reverts [6] [7] [8] against discussion outcome.

Old edit war notice was given [9].

• Asking for admin [10] after reverting [11] without notifying anyone involved [12]. Again [13] and [14] and history.
• The "improperly altered" series of canned edit summaries [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] that were difficult to tell what actually changed or were misleading.
• Keep opening new sections and recycling old arguments such as "threadbare" and "do you deny" in discussion, some since June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vacosea (talk • contribs) 14:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Suggest that they take some time to reflect what they're trying to do here on Wikipedia. Vacosea (talk) 13:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

the filer has engaged in their share of disruptive editing [26], [27] and I have stopped reverting after the involvement of a previously uninvolved editor. I did not give notice to the filer when I went to the noticeboards because I didnt make and had no intention of making the filer the subject of the discussions. I’ve been discussing many of the issues with the filer that have given rise to the edit warring on the associated talk page but at this point it is basically like talking to a brick wall with them. Some administrative on THAT would be nice Thundercloss (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I've now had one interaction with Thundercloss, which is at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Help needed for a long running dispute. They asked for assistance breaking a deadlock, and I advised them to stop accusing other editors of not reading their posts, and to realize consensus is currently against them and move on or start an RFC. Their response was to accuse me of not reading. Refuses to accept consensus, and assumes bad faith of those that disagree with them. Not a great mix. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

it wasn’t helpful advice because they haven’t been reading the stuff I’ve been writing and that’s evidenced by their responses. That’s not me assuming bad faith or refusing to accept consensus, that’s just me stating a fact. If an admin thinks I’m wrong they are free to go through the discussion page and verify the accusation for themselves. That said I have stopped reverting now, and will commit to this position from now on given the number of and comments by new editors who are now involved in this dispute. I should also point out that I am still in the process of discussing many of the issues with the filer on the associated talk page that have given rise to the edit warring on the main article. But given the discussion history I’m not optimistic that the negotiations are going to go anywhere. Thundercloss (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Or they read what you wrote, and disagree or aren't convinced. You are specifically assuming bad faith. Either move on or start an RFC, and stop accusing editors that disagree with you of not reading what you're saying. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

we aren’t going to get anywhere with this accusation issue so i won’t waste anymore time talking about that. I will start an RFC but not before doing everything I can to resolve as many of the disputes on the discussion page as possible. But once more - given the discussion history I’m not optimistic that much is going to get resolved.Thundercloss (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Just remember there is a difference between resolved, reaching consensus and done the way you want. They can sometimes be the same thing, but not always. Resolution and consensus may be against what you personally feel it should be. Canterbury Tail talk 15:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You went to a notice board, and then when you did not get the answer you wanted accused the user of not reading the dispute. That does not look like assuming good faith to me. Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

They did seem rather dismissive from what I have seen (the same place as ScottishFinnishRadish). Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You really need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Bblqk37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an editor with a self-admitted conflict of interest who has been asked by myself and an admin (see comment by "Waggers" on their talk page) to respect the COI rules. Yet, for some reason, they seem to think that the rules don't apply to them. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I just noticed on their talk page that they now want me to supply them with my "full name and country of residence". M.Bitton (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This looks like a blatant case of WP:NOTHERE, especially their demand that M.Bitton supply your full name and country of residence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

24 hour vacation for edit warring on Cairngorm Club. If communication doesn't follow, I think we'll be in longer block territory. Star Mississippi 16:54, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully they'll get the message. M.Bitton (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Clear legal threat too. Secretlondon (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but it was made 5 and a half years ago and they have since removed it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Away and get a life. Clearly you are in the USA. You do not have any legal right to ban me from anything in the UK. Bblqk37 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi and Canterbury Tail: what do you think of their reply? M.Bitton (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that was something. If I'd been here instead of out drinking I'd probably have indeffed them as well. Canterbury Tail talk 21:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks to that and the recent nonsense on their talk, I've indeffed. Should they wish to return as a collaborative editor, the usual processes remain available. Thanks for flagging @M.Bitton Star Mississippi 18:38, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

User: Selfstudier (talk · contribs).
Page: Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2022 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

When I added links to the 'See also' section, Selfstudier reverted me ([28], [29], [30], [31]) demanding to get consensus first, and left a message on my talk page calling my editing disruptive. But when he added links to the same section and I reverted him ([32], [33], [34]), he re-added them and left a "warning" on my talk page accusing me of disruptive editing, again. He continues to push his POV, despite it's being against consensus.

Earlier on the same talk page, after he tried to remove content and received pushback, he said things like "we can do that or we can have a POV free for all, your choice" and "It's OK, the POV game is open to be played by more than one person as I said above". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

He made edits you dont like, and you made edits he doesnt like, and for some reason that merits a trip to ANI? Misusing this board in an attempt to remove an opponent isnt the best idea and opens you up to a WP:BOOMERANG. nableezy - 03:18, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs) has not made a single edit to Selfstudier's talk except for the ANI notice, which I'd consider the bare minimum dispute resolution before an ANI is worthy. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 03:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I addressed Selfstudier numerous times on the talk page mentioned above. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

He's instructing others to apply to requirements he's not doing himself. And he's openly saying he's pushing POV. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 03:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be concern about an editor essentially openly threatening to mess with POV due to additions. That's not constructive, but it's also not ANI worthy, because saying ther are going to, isn't the same doing it. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I think if you look at the thread where Selfstudier saying it, you'll see that's what he's doing. That's why he's bragging about own POV-pushing. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

He isnt bragging about anything, he is saying your POV pushing should be answered. And your claim of it being against consensus is nonsense. Neither of you have consensus on that talk page. And this is straightforward attempt to remove an opponent from that talk page. Which, again, is not a smart move. nableezy - 06:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I really appreciate Selfstudier's contributions, he's been great at updating the page. But he was wrong in the last couple of days. These were really like made to make a point, and then he edit warred on it and continued with a nonsense tag. His whole tone on the talk page was as if he was doing this all as retaliation.Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Let's start at the beginning: Diff1 7 July The complainant edited a new section of the talk page entitled "Selfstudier", complained about a removal I made and asserts without evidence that I do not WP:OWN the page.

Diff 2 & Diff 3 I changed the section title and complainant changed it back once again alleging WP:OWN and again without evidence.

I referred the complainant to their talk page Diff 4 and point out that WP:TALKHEADPOV says ""Never use headings to attack other users: While no personal attacks and assuming good faith apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious" and asked for an apology. None was forthcoming.

As for the "see alsos", I was initially of the view that a basic timeline article did not need them and indeed the article managed without them since its creation until they were added on 1 July (including a redlink) Diff 5. There ensued discussions on the talk page after I removed them and since two editors wanted them in, I let it go.

However, when I then attempted to add see alsos according to this new "consensus", the same two editors who insisted on having see alsos to begin with had an apparent change of heart, only their see alsos were to be allowed but mine were not. 2022 in Israel would be OK while directly related links per WP:MOS added by myself would not be OK, described by complainant as "spam links about broad subjects not specific to this year" [Diff 6] and most recently on the talk page as "spamming of it with vague and POV links" and now by a second editor (of the same POV as the complainant) as "a collection of broad unrelated links".

It is clear that the two editors claiming a "consensus" on this issue are now for all practical purposes, teaming. I would like either editor to explain why the see alsos added by myself are not allowed and what is the basis for their reverts. Essentially, both editors are abusing the see also section to push a POV, which is why I tagged it (tag now removed Diff 7 with edit summary "how in the world "2022 in Israel" is POV? removing ridiculous tag" !? That these editors are unable to see that this is POV is somewhat concerning.

Selfstudier (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Selfstudier, I have been working with you collegially on that page for more than a month. I am the third editor, with you being first, by number of edits on the page. I greatly appreciate your many valuable contributions. Why are you now coming at me with the outrageous "teaming" accusation?Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 09:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@חוקרת: Perhaps you should answer why you think links reflecting only one-side of a two-way conflict is not POV, but "nonsense": I'd definitely like to know. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The page is about the conflict in 2022, thus "2022 in Israel" is relevant and your additions are irrelevant, unreasonable and excessive. Besides that, "2022 in Israel" is neutral, while yours are one-sided, but you, of course, knows this, otherwise you wouldn't add them. As for the accusation of "teaming up" – what does this even mean? I'm not familiar and don't recall ever having a contact with him/her, if that's what you're saying. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that the page is currently subject to active arbitration remedies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Romcreator (talk · contribs) has at least twice added copyright violation content to Dmitry Steshin and Alexander Kots (journalist); moreover, the source doesn't mention either Steshin or Kots [35]. This raises questions as to whether other passages in the articles they've created contain WP:OR, or have also been copied from their foreign language sources, which I'm unable to read. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is a video record of the event, where you can see the presentation with both Steshin and Kots. And the discussion among journalists about them.

You can check the video (the picture in left corner is Kots, in right corner - Steshin)

search for "Російська пропаганда як інструмент геноциду українського народу. Методи виявлення та викриття" in YouTube, 5min26sec Romcreator (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• • But it's not in the source you've been using. Can you confirm whether you've added copied text elsewhere? 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

    Should I add the YouTube video as a source in this case? Romcreator (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

    I have taken some of the statements from this article (which I want to mention as a source):

    https://imi.org.ua/en/news/ukrainian-journalists-call-to-punish-russian-propagandists-for-facilitating-the-genocide-in-ukraine-i46351

    Is this a violation of Wiki rules? What I need to do in this case?

    (I'm new in Wiki, sorry) Romcreator (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• • • You're still not responding to the original concern re: copyright violations. Until that's resolved, I wouldn't recommend making any further edits. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

      No, this content is original. Some of it was taken from Russian-languauge Wiki and translated by me. Romcreator (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

      • To the contrary, at least some of the Steshin article appears to have been copied, as from [36]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

        should I rewrite this? Romcreator (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

        What is a best and correct way to add this information? Romcreator (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Add Semen Pegov. On further reading, the broader concern here is with the agenda and POV--are these Russian propagandists notable, and do the sources meet WP:RELIABLE?. Though Romcreator professes to be a new editor, unfamiliar with the process, thay seem to know what they're doing quite well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note that مصر المصريين (talk · contribs) started an undiscussed mass move of pages, mass changing the spelling of people's names to Arabic transliteration (Abdul Hussain --> Abd al-Husayn, Abdul Latif --> ʻAbd al-Laṭīf, etc.). I've asked them to stop and reverted a couple of most recent moves, but I'm unable to follow through with reversal of all the ~80 page moves. Can someone step in to help? Thanks, — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

These are not my "preferred spellings", but the convention of WP:MOSAR for the romanization of Arabic on Wikipedia, which you've probably never read. مصر المصريين (talk) مصر المصريين (talk) 13:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have just read WP:MOSAR and it certainly does not mandate changing the common English translation of a name to a strict transliteration. In fact it says quite the reverse. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Precisely. MOSAR explicitly states that The strict transliteration (...) is only used for etymology, while articles titles should follow the article naming criteria. You need to revert all your page moves. — kashmīrī ^TALK 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

لمصريين should revert these changes and wait for consensus before restoring or performing any similar moves. MOSAR is in line with the vast majority of wikipedia style standards in stating that article titles should follow "translation or transcription that is most often used in English-language reliable sources (WP:COMMONNAME principle)", which in many of these moves can be easily shown to be the pre-move name.Dialectric (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

MOSAR is actually a bit intricate and not always well understood. For the names of modern people, places and things we use 'common transcription', which is basically WP:COMMONNAME: use the most common spelling in RS or the one used by the subject themselves. However, for historical subjects, RS themselves use transliteration, with the precise rules varying almost from publication to publication. For these subjects we too use a transliteration system, adapted from one of the most widely used ones in English-language sources, with two sets of rules: one with all the diacritics in place ('strict transliteration'), and another, simplified version of this which is easy to type for all editors because containing only ASCII characters ('basic transcription').

But 'basic transcription', which is the standard for article titles, is still a transliteration system, and only fit for historical subjects and other subjects for which no 'common transcription' exists. Finally arriving at what مصر المصريين has been doing, i.e., moving name articles to transliterated titles, this is perhaps one of the most difficult types of articles to decide on. Often one finds a dozen or more different spellings for one name, with none of them being particularly more prominent. Though there are possible objections upon which I will not elaborate here, it would make some sense to use transliteration to make all Arabic name articles uniform and easy to decide on. However, and that is why we are here, this would mean moving hundreds of pages, which is something that should never be done without getting a solid consensus for it first.

We do have a bit of a problem though with an obvious space for editors to go and propose this. I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthroponymy/Arabic names task force, but the last 10 edits there go back to 2011. There's also WT:ARAB, but it's near-dead too. Your best bet is probably WT:APO with a notice of the discussion at WT:ISLAM. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 00:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

All those page moves should be reversed, if they've not gone through the RM process, let alone gotten a consensus to be moved. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel this account might belong to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SheryOfficial. Quack! — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:28, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Well one thing that seems certain is that this user has edited a lot before creating this account. It's also true that SheryOfficial socks of the last past half year have been disruptively moving pages (many of which I have reverted during the past week), including quite a few moves citing MOSAR. However, that's where the similarity ends. I am very familiar with SheryOfficial, and though one can never be sure, I don't think it's them at this point. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've now also spotted important differences, primarily in geo association. So, ignore my suggestion. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

How is one able to contact the editor-in-question, aside from posting at the editor's talkpage. Pinging would be difficult, as I don't have non-english letters on my keyboard. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just copy and paste their username (مصر المصريين) inside the ping template. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

EditPatroller296 (talk · contribs) has, over the course of several weeks, been adding errors to the article Townley Grammar School (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (5) (6) (7), even possibly entering into an edit war with editors from the school itself. The errors claim that the school is closed, while using an outdated source [37] instead of the current, up to date source [38] which I also added to the article. StartOkayStop (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I’m also going to add that they also have recently been making some unconstructive edits, where they replace some content and change the reference, and then say “just trust me bro,” as they did here [39] and here [40]. The typical edit summaries they’ve been using for these edits are things like “Fixed inaccuracies” and “Fixed issues.” ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 06:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Reading the admissions page from the school's website gives the impression that the "Townley Grammar School for Girls" was indeed shut down, but then the "Townley Grammar School" reopened in its place. EditPatroller296 hasn't edited in a week, so I don't think it's necessary to take any action right now, but if they return to their disruption it could be worth opening another thread. That or, and I say this without checking any of their edits, a partial block preventing them from editing that page could work. Anarchyte (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to report edit warring, a violation of WP:BRD and MOS:PRON by User:Akerbeltz.

I removed the stress mark from the IPA transcriptions of Basque in Álava, Basque language and San Sebastián because it is not a part of the Help:IPA/Basque guide. Per MOS:PRON (section Other languages), Other languages have dedicated IPA-xx templates, where xx is the 2-letter ISO 639-1 code or the 3-letter ISO 639-3 code for the language in question, as in {{IPA-el}} for Greek or {{IPA-fa}} for Persian. A number of languages also have dedicated templates that automatically convert ordinary letters (or conventional ASCII equivalents) to IPA characters that are used to transcribe the language in question, such as {{IPAc-fr}} for French and {{IPAc-cmn}} for Mandarin Chinese. These languages and templates are listed at {{IPA}}. Again, if the language you're transcribing has such an IPA key, use the conventions of that key. If you wish to change those conventions, bring it up for discussion on the key's talk page. Creating transcriptions unsupported by the key or changing the key so that it no longer conforms to existing transcriptions will confuse readers. This means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.

They keep refusing to engage with me on Help talk:IPA/Basque, which is the appropriate place for such discussions. Edit summaries such as adding stress symbols to shut up the IPA lawyer show that this person has absolutely no interest in respecting the proper way of dealing with such issues, instead showing the my way or the highway (or WP:OWNERSHIP, basically) philosophy. Given that they've been here for over a decade, they really ought to know better than to behave like this.

First wave of edits: [41], [42], [43]. Reverts: [44], [45], [46].

Second wave of edits: [47], [48], [49]. Reverts: [50], [51], [52]. Note the edit summary it just says "use the conventions of that language, it does NOT say you can only use what's listed on the IPA page, indeed many languages don't even have that page which is clearly at odds with what MOS:PRON says (and then goes off on a tangent about other languages that are not the topic of the discussion).

Third wave of edits: [53], [54]. Reverts: [55], [56]. The edit summaries that read restore stress mark, stop removing relevant info, the stress mark is so universal it's not going to confuse anyone who can read IPA give off WP:OWNERSHIP vibes with a complete disregard for MOS:PRON. And it is an insult to my intelligence to suggest that I think that a stress mark would "confuse" someone who can read the IPA, as it is one of the most basic IPA signs.

Then, after User:Largoplazo created a discussion on Talk:San Sebastián#Phonetic representation, Akerbeltz added the stress mark to Help:IPA/Basque with a disregard for other IPA transcriptions of Basque which would then have to be changed per MOS:PRON (to repeat myself, this means that transcriptions linking to Help:IPA/X guides should agree with those guides and vice versa.) Because of that, I reverted them. Then, they start edit warring with me, disregarding MOS:PRON and WP:BRD. In fact, they completely disregarded WP:BRD as they ignored the discussion on Help talk:IPA/Basque#Stress mark. Diffs: [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Sol505000 (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

While your complaint here is, I'm assuming, aimed primarily at the edit warring, can I just hold up for reflection the notion that if phonetic transcriptions from a particular language uniformly fail to represent something so fundamental as the stress, we must never begin remediating that deficiency anywhere because we can't fix it everywhere at once?

The real deficiency seems to have been at Help:IPA/Basque, and Akerbeltz fixed that. I don't see how you make that out to be a MOS:PRON violation. Where does MOS:PRON say "Thou shalt not include stress in IPA representations"? Have you taken a look at Help:IPA/Spanish? Help:IPA/Russian? Largoplazo (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Akerbeltz is generally a good editor; the problem here is that if IPA-eu is changed, then all the articles that link to it should be changed to match. That's a significant project, affecting many articles, so there should be an announcement on the talk page of the key, where people could register their objections. At the least, a discussion should be started on the intended project if they start running into difficulty implementing it because they're getting reverted. It's not a matter of whether stress should be marked or not [and BTW stress is much less salient in Basque than it is in Spanish or Russian, so those aren't good analogies], but of consistency. No, it doesn't have to all be done at once, but there should be some indication that there are plans to do it, like 'I've started a project to add stress to all trasclusions of this key.' Also, in the case of marginal distinctions like this, there may be good reason to avoid it (such as it being inconsistent between dialects). Why wasn't it in the key to begin with? Was there a consensual decision to not include it or to remove it? That might be relevant to restoring it. — kwami (talk) 04:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

As for why it wasn't there, I suspect nobody ever got round to the suprasegmentals, since there's nothing exotic about primary/secondary stress. People likely have to check up on stuff like ɟ or ts̻ in Basque but ˈ much less so.

As for the edit war, I object to people wasting other people's time for no good reason. The primary stress mark is hardly exotic in IPA and its use Araba and Donostia is relevant and non-controversial. For an editor with an apparent knowledge of the IPA and MOS but apparently little in the way of Basque to come in and start removing stuff from Basque pages because of some rather dubious MOS angle and then to have the cheek to suggest if I add the missing bit they've complained about to the IPA page that this means I am therefore obliged to weed through an unknown number of pages, sorry, that's wasting everyone's time for *very* little gain, so yeah, I get short with that kind of thing and I'm not apologetic about it. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:01, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Some good points that I hadn't considered. About the inconsistency part, though: It isn't the same as if someone were to replace one representation with another and begin implementing the new one. That would create confusion, with the same sound or phoneme being represented in different ways in different places. In this case, there would be renderings that indicate the stress and renderings that don't. This wouldn't be confusing, it would look like what it was: a case of something missing that could be added by anyone who came along, noticed the deficiency, and knew where the stress marks should go. Largoplazo (talk) 11:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Like incomplete tone information in languages that have simple tone systems that a lot of dictionaries don't bother with. I've come across WP transcriptions like that, and yeah, it's pretty obvious that they're simply incomplete. I have no objection to that, but at this point, having come to ANI, I think it would be best for Akerbeltz to start a thread on the IPA-eu key talk page, saying what they intend to do and why, list a couple RS's, maybe ping those involved in creating the key or drop a note on the wikiproject talk pages, and wait a week for feedback. If no-one bothers to reply, you can take that as silent consensus. Sol505000 is correct in how we've set things up to work in this cooperative setting -- you need to satisfy those with no knowledge of the subject that you're following sources, because otherwise how can they tell? There's no rush here, and @Akerbeltz:, even if you're rolling your eyes over having to go all bureaucratic over something you find straightforward, remember that there's no peer-review before you publish, and it'll probably take less time and effort for you follow WP:BOLD than it will to repeatedly argue over it in edit-summaries. — kwami (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Just gonna add, it isn't immediately obvious that the IPA transcriptions of Basque should include stress. Basque dialects show big differences in stress/accent patterns, and stress in Standard Basque has little to no contrastive value. MOS:PRON recommends, generally, following national or international standards, in this case being Standard Basque's stress patterns, but I think there is room for opposition and it's something that should be discussed. Erinius (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have no problem with including stress for some dialects if the relevant transcriptions are going to be adjusted along with the guide. I've never taken a definitive stance on this. Sol505000 (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Just because stress in Basque is complicated doesn't mean it's a complete free-for-all. Like you won't get [ˈdonos̺tia]) in any dialect but if we put [donos̺tia]) then the chances non-speakers putting the stress in a totally wrong position goes UP. Collaborative is fine by me until it turns into "my knowledge of some Wiki policy trumps subject expert knowledge", at which point it becomes a waste of time and the main reason I do so little mainspace editing on the English Wikipedia these days. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never said that my knowledge of MOS:PRON or WP:BRD "trumps" your knowledge of Basque (I can't verify the "expert" part and it's not terribly relevant anyway). Stop putting words in my mouth. I can see that you participated in discussions on Help talk:IPA/Basque as early as in 2010 (12 years ago), so you really should've known better than to edit war with me in multiple articles. If you can't follow the aforementioned policies after that much time on WP then I can see why you edit so little. Sol505000 (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Aamir Khan filmography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported this issue at AIV but was told to take it to another admin board (which I acknowledge is appropriate). I removed content at Aamir Khan filmography because it was not supported by the source cited. User Krimuk2.0 reverted with no explanation. When I again stated that the information was not in the source cited, Krimuk2.0 restored the content again with the explanation "the onus is on you to provide the correct source". I pointed out WP:BURDEN here. Krimuk2.0 added a different source that again had nothing to do with the content in question. I would appreciate it if someone would point out to Krimuk2.0 that any material on Wikipedia that is challenged should not be restored without a source that actually supports the edit. If I should discuss this elsewhere please advise. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This user MeGowtham (talk · contribs · count) deleting, AFD template, without providing reasons (here, here). It has been previously warned on the talk page. (WP:LISTEN) HurricaneEdgar 04:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Also here, here, here and here on the one article. Also warned on users talk page. Hughesdarren (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have also taken issue that some of the articles they have created have zero sources. Draft:Deepa Shankar was deleted per G7 after some sloppy handling of this unsourced BLP, but then got recreated in article space; it is now at AfD. MeGowtham added a source (using improper markup, as I recall) only when I told them to do so in a draft comment, and as noted by Deepika o (talk · contribs), that source does not verify any of the associated article content. Their other article, Mr. and Mrs. Chinnathirai (Season 4), has a similar history.

More recently, they also uploaded an image of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan without any licensing information, and which turned out to be a copyvio of [66]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for disruptive editing. Anarchyte (talk) 06:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The AfD for Deepa Shankar has been withdrawn after additional sources were found, while the image was tagged as non-free for use on a nonexistent article, and has been tagged for deletion per F5 and F7c. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated a page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Philip_Brooks_(basketball) for AFD, the votes were in favor to delete the page because it has no independent coverage. The guy hired a few people from Upwork a freelancing site and hiring people to edit their page and save it. A person name Franklin Darrk and one more is adding useless website links such as weebly.com, their personal website of Philip, Press releases website, and trademark.trademarkia.com as a reference. I warned him multiple times but every time he added the links. Two Wikipedians including the voter told Franklin to add the 3 independent news sources to the article but he is adding weebly.com and personal website links as a third-party reference. Kindly take action and see the AFD page. --IntelisMust (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) @IntelisMust: As the red text near the top of the page states, you must notify the user in question on their talk page. I have done so for you this time. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that there's much to do here except to close the AfD as a clear "delete", as has been done. I see that the editor in question has been given some warnings on their talk page. Any accusations of underhand behaviour need strong evidence to support them, and, unless an editor freely discloses their true identity on Wikipedia, we should be wary of WP:OUTING. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Boston has been adding spam links to media by "J. M. Smig" to multiple articles.[67][68][69] The links connect to Smig's Bandcamp page or Smig's YouTube page. Wikilinks are often added to the notional biography J. M. Smig,[70] a page which was deleted in 2006, moved to User:J.M. Smig. The user made two edits in userspace in 2006 and then fell silent. In the last week, the person has resurfaced to promote their work.[71] Below, I have listed the IPs involved in this activity. Binksternet (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Involved IPs

• 172.58.219.150 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.208 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.232 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.220.251 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.157 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.18 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.46 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.219.114 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 172.58.222.169 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• I have made a one-month rangeblock of 172.58.219.0/21 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks! That will send a message. Binksternet (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:6154:228f:2b0b:498c (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Is repeatedly removing content and sources from Kip Williams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) citing "invasion of privacy". All content is, as far as I can see, is sourced, publicly available and not harmful to the subject. Not responding to messages left on anon's talk page. Appears to want the article to be a hagiography. Could I please get some more eyes on this? Thanks Adakiko (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This looks like an edit war, and a 3RR violation. Not sure if this would be better reported to the 3RR noticeboard, but here are some some diffs:

Last good version: [72]

Reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]
5. [77]

StartOkayStop (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional note: There appear to be other accounts and IP addresses making the same types of edits, including 2001:8003:3cfd:fc00:20dd:e912:877f:dcfe (talk · contribs) [78], MikeWayneSydney (talk · contribs) [79], and 203.220.230.206 (talk · contribs) [80]. StartOkayStop (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not an edit war. What this is a highly disruptive individual who is removing citation without an explanation. Judekkan (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

The involvement of multiple IPs is why I posted here rather then EWN. Adakiko (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Another new IP just popped up doing the exact same things: 49.195.18.217 (talk · contribs). Same types of edits, and the only recent edits on this IP. StartOkayStop (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I requested page protection at WP:RPP. Judekkan (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected for a week to stop the edit warring. I'm about to log off and haven't had time to look through all the references, so I don't know if there is any additional action needed there, though I will make the general note that BLP concerns aren't necessarily invalid just because they are brought forth in a non-ideal manner. --Blablubbs (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• 2A00:23C4:BF84:BE01:0:0:0:0/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial))

Someone using IPs from Cambridge has been adding unreferenced, unsupported genres to music articles, especially songs by the Chemical Brothers.[81][82][83] The person is also adding unsupported genres to film articles.[84][85]

The person is uncommunicative, never responding to the many talk page warnings that have been delivered. Binksternet (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for 72-hours.--v/r - TP 02:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators please bock this IP 2601:406:4103:230:F966:1EF8:F796:B979 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). He's doing Unconstructive edits at Maddam Sir, Pandya Store, Banni Chow Home Delivery and Sasural Simar Ka by replacing Gulki Joshi, Alice Kaushik, Ulka Gupta and Avika Gor's names with Dipika Kakkar Ibrahim and Nia Sharma respectively. Pri2000 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Hasn't edited since 04:48 UTC, all edits reverted, so probably no need for action at this time. Black Kite (talk) 10:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Black Kite: this IP's sock IP 2601:406:4103:230:3D6E:C3A0:5C65:A7AD (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is repeating same thing on Maddam Sir, Pandya Store, Ravivaar With Star Parivaar, Alice Kaushik even after other editors reverting this IP's edits. It has been done within few hours.Pri2000 (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
    • 2601:406:4103:230:0:0:0:0/64 blocked for 72 hours. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR by Hobbitschuster (talk · contribs), most recently at Flag desecration, Xenon, Nuremberg U-Bahn, U2 (Nuremberg U-Bahn), La Hague site, Helsinki–Tallinn Tunnel, and a host of other articles. User has responded to warnings not with a determination to begin adding sources, but with this [87]. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

(invited by 2601:19e:4180:6d50:65f5:930c:b0b2:cd63) This appears to be a persistent, cross-wiki issue, looking at their enwiki talk page and their dewiki talk page. Quick examples: [88], [89], [90]. Responding to these concerns as displayed in [91] and [92] isn't acceptable even if the content turns out to be verifiable, and I think we've reached a point where all substantial additions by Hobbitschuster can be considered to be "challenged in advance" by the community, requiring citations as described in WP:BURDEN.

Additionally, Hobbitschuster appears to have a general issue with having to deal with unregistered editors's policy concerns when editing Wikipedia ([93], [94]) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Hobbitschuster for 72 hours for persistently adding unreferenced content. Their snide and disrespectful comments about other editors is an aggravating factor. Cullen328 (talk) 16:56, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. A new user who can contribute intelligently, if initially outside the guidelines, is always welcome when they acknowledge the necessity of WP:RELIABLE sources. Seven years down the road and treating those guidelines by persistently dismissing them, and other users, doesn't work. I will start reverting some of the edits, though the trail is a long one. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bunkerpr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Bunkerpr violates WP:COI and WP:REFSPAM on a regular basis and either deletes or ignores warnings on his talk page.

WP:COI violations (I. M. Mills, R. N. Zare, F. Légaré, P. Jensen, H. C. Longuet-Higgins, A. R. W. McKellar, C. di Lauro, T. Carrington are his associates [95][96][97][98][99][100][101][102]): [103] (see references #51 and #53 in the arXiv paper) [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] [150] [151] [152] [153] [154] [155] [156] [157] [158] [159] [160] [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] [166] [167] [168] [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174]

Diffs with warnings about COI: [175] [176] [177] [178]

See also the bottom of this[179] message and this[180].

I suggest that Bunkerpr be blocked indefinitely per WP:DISRUPTONLY. A1E6 (talk) 06:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave a final warning since they're not currently active. They're on very thin ice. Star Mississippi 16:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

022 (UTC)

• Comment I haven’t met Bunkerpr in real life, but I work in the same research area. He’s an internationally respected scholar, trying to make contributions to Wikipedia in his retirement. His edits have all been technically correct, and he’s made edits having nothing to do with his own papers or book. I believe that this user has made these edits in good faith and that an indefinite block is going too far at this point. If a block is considered, it should be a short-term block issued as a warning. If the warning is not heeded, then next steps. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 13:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Bunkerpr calls the rules "the stupid rules of wiki land"[181]. This is not good faith, he is not here to build an encyclopedia (WP:CNH), he just wants to promote his work and work of his associates (as you can see in the diffs). He was warned several times in the past (and was also blocked) but this wasn't enough (as you can see in the diffs). So blocking indefinitely is the only solution. A1E6 (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I did go through many of the diffs. I wasn’t aware that he’d been blocked in the past. I’m aware of those comments since they occurred in a conversation with me, wherein I was trying to steer him away from the point of view you just mentioned. As far as I know that’s the only negative comment he made, and he probably thought he was making it in confidence since he seemed unaware of why Wikipedia works the way it works. He was, I think, trying to strike an apologetic tone with me but certainly I wasn’t the one who needed an apology. In any case, if he was blocked in the past that may be a different kettle of fish. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 16:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose Bunkerpr may not be the best or most experienced Wikipedia editor, but I find his recent edits to generally be constructive in that they improve the encyclopedia's coverage. It is unfortunate that Bunkerpr refspammed in the past, but he doesn't seem to be doing that anymore since September 2020. In [182] he settled for a version without his book referenced with the comment "Ah Well. People will have to look at my book to really understand angular momenta in molecules", so he seems to have internalized the refspam policy. Well, minus adding his book in [183]. Other papers he has cited since then have been Mills and Légaré, for which the COI claims seem overblown; e.g. François Légaré published precisely one paper together with Bunker, and from the actual paper site you can see they were all at difference research institutions and it was a collaboration of diverse researchers. Similarly Mills coauthored a paper and met Bunker at a picnic. Using this flimsy evidence we would ban everyone with an Erdős number from citing Erdős's papers because of COI.

There is likely to be an actual COI of Bunkerpr editing his own Wikipedia page Philip Bunker and the page of his doctoral advisor Christopher Longuet-Higgins, but he seems to have stopped that too. I have placed COI templates on their talk pages. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

At worst I would say Bunkerpr deserves a main-article ban, he should at least be able to leave messages on talk pages. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 19:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

In 2022 alone, he violated WP:COI at least 8 times. It doesn't matter if they were at different institutions, it's still a conflict of interest if they collaborate. A1E6 (talk) 20:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Unfortunately, Bunkerpr is continuing to edit the page Philip Bunker, even after the warnings. It does seem like he's unresponsive and doesn't plan to stop his practices. This is very unfortunate. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  as a partial step, he has been p-blocked from the article Star Mississippi 01:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  These logs [184][185] are very suspicious. It is possible that Bunkerpr uses socks/new IPs/his associates to edit the article. Also on 9/8/2020, Bunkerpr added[186] the link [187] to Angular momentum operator. On 9/18/2020, Sergeyarhivarius added[188] the same link to Spectroscopy. A1E6 (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @A1E6. I blocked the IP as the quacking is deafening. Suggest this goes to SPI for broader tracking. Star Mississippi 14:29, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  ETA: the IP disclosed here. If someone thinks that merits an even longer block, I have no objection. Star Mississippi 14:31, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's up to you, but I don't see an end in sight. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree, but with one person opposing further action is going to need SPI or consensus. Star Mississippi 01:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support some sort of sanction. One option I had been thinking of was a ban from BLP and science pages. Gusfriend (talk) 00:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support ban from directly editing articles related to chemistry, atomic and molecular physics, or Philip Bunker. Since this is a COI issue, edits to talk pages should still be allowed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this, a selective ban on editing these kinds of pages seems proportional. Qflib, aka KeeYou Flib (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Weak support of a topic ban. It seems like this user has also engaged in incivility. GTNO6 (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Since 10 June 2022, you can see disruptive edit warring from single-purpose IP range 45.115.0.0/16 almost daily at the history of Swimsuit. Note: 45.115.0.0/16 is range-blocked from the talk namespace.

What I request is that the article be indefinitely semi-protected, or the IP range indefinitely blocked from editing the article (not other articles, just that specific one).

Thanks, GTNO6 (talk) 09:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, you can request semi-protection for a page at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Regards, Fish+Karate 09:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

The user Iterresise (talk · contribs · count) insists on simply deleting, without any prior discussion or consensus, various demographic tables from country articles (see here, here, here, here, etc). He has already been warned by user Moxy (see here and here) about this kind of destabilizing behavior and about the promotion of edit wars, but he insists on this kind of attitude. I request some kind of administrative intervention, as the previous warnings have not had any effect. Chronus (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup...second report on this board ....they are not new very familiar with Useful links

-(Moxy- 02:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy Second report? Chronus (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

opps achieved ...my bad]Moxy- 02:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Moxy You think Neplota & Iterresise might be the same individual? GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Notified the editor on their talk page about this thread since they hadn't recieved the notice. I found it odd that after being warned for edit warring they removed the warning citing "don't template the regulars". The account is less than four months old, so either there's some kind of delusions of grandeur going on or something's shady. Either way, I also find the behaviour incredibly disruptive. The templates they are removing are useful for readers of the articles to easily get an overview of population clusters without having to go to some different stub article for it that may or may not even be as detailed as the template itself, and the reasons they have been citing for removing it have been flawed at best. They're currently blocked for edit warring but if this continues more drastic measures should be taken. TylerBurden (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

They replaced the notification with an edit summary of "how ridiculous" [189] then changed their talk page User talk:Iterresise to "hypocrites and liars". I also agree that it is a little odd to say don't template the regulars when they posted a template on an editor who has been here since 2008 ([190]). Gusfriend (talk) 00:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

So it doesn't exactly look like they have learned from their mistakes. Calling people hypocrites when templating 2008 users.. nothing posted on that talk page has been a lie, their edit history confirms edit warring across several articles. I think a longer block at this point would be preventative because there is evidently no accountability here. TylerBurden (talk) 12:10, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• They seem to have a history of making a change and, after they are reverted, repeating their edit. For example at International Science Olympiad they repeated their edit after it had been reverted [191] and gave a warning to the other user [192] which included the standard talk page message even though they rarely use the talk page themselves (and didn't in this situation). On the DAB pages Faro and DM they also re-added content after being reverted without using the talk page or attempting to generate a consensus. Gusfriend (talk) 06:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  (non-admin comment) Consensus which they would be very unlikely to get; MOS:DAB#Grouping by subject area recommends against the type of changes they made. Narky Blert (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

  Let's not ban them longer for now...much easier to follow this account then the sock they will make. Moxy- 00:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• It would be good to hear a response from @Iterresise:. Gusfriend (talk) 10:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

A WP:PIA article with a history of socks. More eyes requested. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this, 2601. Yaniv Horon sock indeffed. Proxy IP blocked 1 year. Article indef-ECP'd and logged under WP:ARBPIA. If anyone wants to take a crack at removing some horrifically POV language, please have a look at the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, Tamzin. I have misgivings about the way the content re: her husband is written, as well as the tone throughout, but I was not at liberty to edit. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have to come to AN/I to point out your own trolling, you're not doing a very good job at trolling. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See Special:Contributions/114.125.70.196, Special:Contributions/182.1.102.44, Special:Contributions/36.79.233.73. Is an innocent person actually going to go to prison just because someone used their IP as a proxy? 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) The IP they seem to have done that with is Special:Contributions/125.25.132.123. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC) People don't generally go to prison for editing Wikipedia. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC) But the aforementioned Lese-majeste in Thailand laws are very strict and the vandal seems to have deliberately used a Thai P2P proxy. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC) How do you know they're actually going to prison? Patachonica (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC) We're being trolled. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) I don't but the law says they can get 3-15 years of each count. 104.220.133.19 (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

103.161.57.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

27.6.62.249 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

and the IPs in the range have been misused by someone who is vandalizing Wikipedia article talk pages with edit summary that says "Tidy using AWB". Please check their range and edits in last few months. @Praxidicae: has reverted today's edit. Some range block may be needed due to the long term vandalism.Venkat TL (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's several IP ranges for this, all part of this SPI. PRAXIDICAE🌈 14:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

yes IP 27.6.62.249 seems to be the same vandal, same edit summary. Venkat TL (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Help, please. Lots of blocks, page protection needed. JNW (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Semi-protected by Drmies. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs & quotes + background:
You have basic deficiencies in the critical apparatus. ([194] on 19:02, 22 December 2021)
Yes, I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. ([195] on 21:30, 22 December 2021)
I mentioned these on an admin's talk page as evidence of Marcelus' grudge against me and his insults towards me ([196]), where Marcelus wants to get me wrongly banned for "ethno-nationalist activity" after his report about me here received zero attention. In response to me, Marcelus replies I didn't insult you once, but I stand by what I said you have deficiencies in the critical apparatus, you are pushing nationalist POV, and I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor. [197] .
After I said: Marcelus' clear doubling down on insults and going against the rules laid out in WP:BATTLEGROUND show that he has a grudge against me and thus he repeatedly mislabels my activity on Wikipedia as nationalist POV-pushing, when it isn't. ([198]), Marcelus answers with I never insulted you. [199].
A back-and-forth with a lot of friction between me and Marcelus has been going on since early September 2021 (visible on the history page of the first article since which there has been a never-ending interaction between Marcelus and I) and has been continuously going since (!!!), to this very day, 17 July 2022.
This needs to end.
Marcelus has repeatedly belittled me, thus breaking WP:NPA. His words clearly fulfill WP:IUC, which says (d) belittling a fellow editor is against Wiki rules.
I would like to ask for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I never insulted Cukrakalnis, I have all the right to voice my opinion about a quality of his edits, and I firmly stand by everything I've said. And I monitor his edits because they have multiple issues. Lately I prevented his attempt to sneakily publish false historical facts, when he was trying to publish maps of prewar Poland provinces labelled in Lithuanian as lands "occupied by Poland". He was also trying to spread racial theories that Belarusians and Polish minority in Lithuania are "really" Balts/Lithuanians. That's only some of his actions. I'm actually proud of my actions in regard to his edits, I think it's a big contribution on my part to Wikipedia as a project. Best regards Marcelus (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

sneakily publish false historical facts That's how Marcelus calls statements that multiple WP:RS affirm. In fact, Marcelus repeatedly mislabels views that are not his as POV pushing, as he removed a WP:RS like the established Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia because of supposed 'extreme POV pushing' when that was clearly not the case. Another case is when I gave him seven WP:RS with quotes supporting a statement Marcelus disagrees with ([200]), which he simply dismissed as 'WP:NPOV per definition' ([201]) due to them holding a view that is contrary to Marcelus'.

Regarding Polish-occupied Lithuanian and Belarusian lands, there are many WP:RS indeed stating that. I found seven reliable sources (the ones above) calling the thing in question as "the Polish occupation of Vilnius", neither of which was a Lithuanian source, thus removing any possibility of claiming that this view is somehow Lithuanian nationalist, as Marcelus likes to erroneously claim. Regarding the naming of the Voivodeship maps as occupied, that was because multiple WP:RS speak of a Polish occupation of Belarusian (and other) lands, thus justifying such naming:

During the Polish occupation of Belarus and Eastern Galicia... (p.22, Homelands: War, Population and Statehood in Eastern Europe and Russia, 1918-1924 edited by Nick Baron, Peter Gatrell)

Thus, the western part of Belarus and Naliboki Forest in particular were under Polish occupation. (p.1177, 'Naliboki Forest: Land, Wildlife and Human. (2nd ed.) Volume III. Historical outline and ethnographical sketch' by Vadim Sidorovich (2020).)

Indeed, by December 1919 the Poles had occupied all of Belarus as far as the Beresina river. (p.xxviii, A Polish Woman’s Experience in World War II: Conflict, Deportation and Exile' by Irena Protassewicz (2019).)

Pogroms on the territory of Belarus occurred in three waves. The first occured in 1919-1920, during and particularly after the Polish occupation; as the troops withdrew, they plundered Jewish property and torched entire villages, but committed few murders. (p519, 'Russia in Flames: War, Revolution, Civil War, 1914-1921' by Laura Engelstein)

To claim that what I am did was POV-motivated is false. Instead, it follows WP:Verifiability, which Marcelus' edits sometimes fail, as users besides me have noticed: [202].

As for the things that Marcelus falsely calls racial theories that Belarusians and Polish minority in Lithuania are "really" Balts/Lithuanians, there were many sources stating those things and because they go against Marcelus' POV, he frames those things in ways that are not true - no one even mentioned race except Marcelus. Furthermore, Marcelus' statement And I monitor his edits because they have multiple issues. is verifiably wrong - he is repeatedly the only one who ever belittles my edits and thus articles, while other users have frequently said the opposite, e.g. "That’s a good article you created Cukrakalnis by the way, good for you." [203], and I have been thanked by far too many people for my edits to be overall considered as "having multiple issues". Considering that I have done +10k edits on en.wiki, people besides Marcelus would have noticed that my edits "had multiple issues" if they were as bad as Marcelus says. Clearly, this is just another proof of Marcelus' WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality against me.

Finally, Marcelus restates that I never insulted Cukrakalnis, when evidence clearly shows the opposite. Cukrakalnis (talk) 16:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for showing exactly why your edits are "problematic". As Renata3 once told you: You need to realise there is a huge difference between "sourced" information and "neutral" information. There are plenty of biased albeit at face value reliable sources. Some of the texts you quoted refer to the years 1919-1920 when the territories mentioned were under short-term Polish rule of a military-civilian nature, they were not included under the normal administration of the Polish state. In view of this, talk of "occupation" is legitimate in this sense and for that time period, but certainly not in relation to the entire inter-war period, when the Polish administration in these territories was legal under international law and of a purely civilian nature. The book about the Naliboki forest is written by a Belarusian zoologist, for whom apparently the whole period of Polish rule over the Belarusian lands was an occupation. He has the right to do so, but that does not make his opinion a reliable source. As for your racist theories, I can quote Renata3 again: interwar and Cold-war sources are much too dated for such claims. There is plenty of modern-day western scholarship which discusses (for example) the idea of "Polonized Lithuanians" as nothing more than a Lithuanian POV that continues to cause tensions with the Polish minority in Lithuania (...) As such, the claims of "Polonized Lithuanians" cannot be left as statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice and must be properly attributed and explained as reflecting Lithuanian POV. Which also proves that I am not alone in my opinion and that I am not the only one who has had serious reservations about the quality of your edits. Not to mention you were blocked once for exactly this, ethno-nationalist editing. Marcelus (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for showing exactly why your edits are "problematic". Do you realise that reducing all of my edits to something as problematic when they simply aren't, is a depiction of WP:UNCIVIL? The absolute majority of the more than 80 articles that I created didn't cause any issue and yet Marcelus still despises and criticizes me (see his insults above).

Regarding Marcelus' calling it "Racist theories", I just point out MOS:RACIST: Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution. Marcelus never brought up any sources calling it racist.

Regarding the occupation question, it's a sourced statement to say that Poland occupied Belarus in the interwar, as scholarly WP:RS talk about that:

Meanwhile, the politics in West Belarus in the 1920s remained less consistent. Even though Belarusian deputies tried several times to force the Belarusian question onto the agenda of the Polish government (Rudling 2015, 18), the Polish government was still unsure on how to treat the minorities. The varying reactions about the Polish occupation among Belarusian intellectuals further complicated the issue for Polish officials. (p.8, Political Cartoon at the Service of West Belarus Left Wing Movement)

Guerrilla struggle of the Belarusian people against the Polish occupation after the Polish-Soviet War... (p.46, Partisan Movement in Western Belarus in the early 1920s: State and Prospects of the Study)

Which also proves that I am not alone in my opinion and that I am not the only one who has had serious reservations about the quality of your edits It is manipulative to use a person's criticisms of a small part of my editing just for you to brand ALL of my work as "problematic" when it simply isn't. Marcelus has a grudge against me and wants me banned, pure and simple. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion on occupation isn't relevant to this noticeboard, as it's a content issue (I believe it has been discussed somewhere, but can't find it immediately). Please try not to bloat the discussion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the discussion on occupation is irrelevant here. Yet Marcelus portrays historical statements he disagrees with as always some sort of "nationalist POV pushing", notably when he said Lately I prevented his attempt to sneakily publish false historical facts, when he was trying to publish maps of prewar Poland provinces labelled in Lithuanian as lands "occupied by Poland". [204] As shown, talking about an occupation by Poland is justified and mentioned in WP:RS. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

You historic statememts don't appear to be the mainstream modern view, something that not only Marcelus has noted, and I don't necessarily disagree with him that you appear to have a very strong POV. Also again just because something is referenced, doesn't immediately qualify it for inclusion. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:33, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The content that was removed includes what would appear to be a claim that the massacre was actually the fault of the people massacred. I haven't gone over all the details, but that doesn't look good. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:28, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I linked the removal because Marcelus said "removing extreme POV pushing" while WP:RS were used. The content was re-added by me in the next edit, because Visuotinė lietuvių enciklopedija is clearly WP:RS. Outright removing what it says is a clear violation of Wiki rules. Justification of "removing extreme POV pushing" is nonsense, as absolutely neutral edits that only improved the article's quality (like pointing to Schutzmannschaft Battalion 258 instead of the unspecific Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions, Home Army 5th Wilno Brigade instead of unlinked text, adding ill to pl and de.wikis) were removed by Marcelus. Regarding ...to be a claim that the massacre was actually the fault of the people massacred, I would disagree and say that I was adding more information (one of the sources used was an encyclopedia) on the prelude to the massacre, not that this would entail any justification.

Still, the main issue is the never-ending friction between me and Marcelus that has been going on too long, and in order to avoid wider disruption on Wikipedia, it is best for there to be some sort of WP:IBAN, especially considering Marcelus demeaning attitude towards me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:43, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested: thank you for noticing that. That is why I retracted the whole edit, because it was done in bad faith, implying the guilt of the victims. There was untrue information such as "The massacre of civilians in Glitiškės was the sole case when a Lithuanian military unit cracked under the tension between Poles and Lithuanians caused by the Home Army's anti-Lithuanian actions and the terrorization of Lithuanians in eastern Lithuania during the German occupation". This is untrue, as there had been earlier massacres by the Lithuanian police (the villages of Adamowszczyzna, Sieńkowszczyzna and Pawłów in May 1944 and Święciany, Łyntupy in May 1942; 400 to as many as 1,200 people were killed in the latter crime), not to mention crimes against the Jewish or Belorussian population. The Cukrakalnis edition denies this, moreover places the blame on the Home Army. Which is scandalous.Marcelus (talk) 19:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all, this thing with Glinciszki massacre is a content dispute that should have been adressed on the article's talk page. Marcelus never mentioned any of the things he is mentioning now in Talk:Glinciszki massacre when it was relevant, and this noticeboard is the wrong place to talk about an article's content. I have never denied the things that Marcelus accuses me of denying, which he never even mentioned to me previously. He is now 1) trying to divert attention from the main topic of this report and 2) trying to frame me in order to ban me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some of Marcelus replies have been less than civil, but I also believe you have an issue with POV. Certainly both of you should try to stop reverting and bickering across multiple pages, you've both already been partially blocked from Antanas Mackevičius. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Certainly both of you should try to stop reverting and bickering across multiple pages... That can only happen if there's an WP:IBAN, which I ask for at this report's end, because Marcelus' self-admitted grudge against me makes it impossible for him to stay away from me. Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with ActivelyDisinterested here. I noticed in this edit [205] this sentence was added "After the events in Glitiškės, the Home Army 5th Wilno Brigade organized a so-called revenge action" (emphasis added). I question whether any editor who think it's acceptable to use the term "so-called revenge action" in wikivoice in that way should be touching such articles. And so notably while I think the way Marcelus has dealt with this has often been unhelpful, I'd be reluctant to endorse an iban, especially a 1 way iban, when there are strong POV pushing problems with the editor. Even more so if it's an area which I think many other editors have gotten sick of. Nil Einne (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Nil Einne:~I can try to limit my interactions with Cukrakalnis to absolute minimum, if that makes him happy Marcelus (talk) 07:22, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested and Nil Einne:~ Marcelus' offer to do so would make me happy. As for me, I just want to not be indefbanned because I really wish to continue editing Wikipedia for recreational yet constructive purposes. I am willing to forbid myself for a prolonged period of time - a month or three (maybe even longer, as the admins or Marcelus wish, just not indefinitely) - from editing any articles where I and Marcelus have strongly disagreed (articles where we have reverted each other) or may cause such disagreement (editing other articles with edits similar to the ones that already caused disagreement). I sincerely hope we reach an agreement of some sort, thus ending this whole thing that has been going on between me and Marcelus for far too long.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I was thinking of punting both up to AE, as this is covered under Eastern Europe. But it is to hot here to figure out how to raise a teport. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:58, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

AE means Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe? I'm not familiar with all English Wiki lingo Marcelus (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes. TylerBurden (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking User talk:Imtiaz.kazi3, which has long been misused by multiple accounts. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• My mistake--it appears to have been filled with arguments and warnings about content the user added to articles. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I was alerted when 2601:14C:100:CC:EC1C:963E:82B1:849C (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added a death date for Eileen Gibb: seemed strange, as no editors working on her had managed to find one. I assumed it was perhaps a family member adding "known" but unpublished date, and reverted. But on looking at the IP's contributions list, there is a stream of unsourced additions of dates. All were done in half an hour, 9 hours ago. I suspect they are all fake and should be reverted en masse. One other has already been reverted and a talk page note left. PamD 08:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted all the edits and blocked the IP for 48 hours. PhilKnight (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This IP user 27.58.43.66 is persistently making disruptive edits at various articles. See; diff, diff, diff. I can't see any constructive contribution from them yet, Special:Contributions/27.58.43.66, despite multiple warnings at talk page from me & other user as well. Packer&Tracker (talk) 12:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked for one month for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

See [222] Due continuous unethical deletions by a Wiki users, attorneys and the Governor's office have suggested updating this page with information relative to the actual legislation authorizing the school. The page will be watched by authorities for evidence of defamation by users which have been categorized for surveilance

Ryorkwestbr97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) had also been vandalising the article, by by adding __NOINDEX__ markup, in an attempt to hide it from search engines, and also made this improper edit [223] to an entirely unrelated talk page, for no obvious reason beyond the fact that I'd just edited the page - possibly an attempt at harassment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bbb23. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In this edit Eric Kvaalen makes a statement (detailed below) and I reverted it. About three hours later Eric Kvaalen restores the error.

The erroneous statement is

As explained below, the dates of Easter repeat after 5,700,000 years, and over this period the average length of an ecclesiastical month is 2,081,882,250/70,499,183 ≈ 29.5305869 days, correct to five digits after the decimal point.

The statement obviously contradicts itself, saying that 29.5305869 is correct to five digits after the decimal place, while at the same time, there is no indication in the other numbers in the sentence are approximations, so it would be correct to all 7 of the digits after the decimal. More importantly, the source referenced in the footnote immediately after this sentence is Calendrical Calculations. I do not have the 3rd edition at hand, but the 4th edition on page 148 states in part

This cycle comprises 2081882250 days and 70499183 months for an average lunar month of approximately 29.530587 days.

I have read the 3rd edition in the recent past and recall that it says the same thing.

By giving seven correct digits after the decimal point but indicating that only 5 of them are correct, Eric Klaaven is implying there is something wrong with Calendrical Calculations without supplying reliable sources to support the claim.

This has been discussed at length in Talk:Date of Easter#Frequencies of the dates of Easter beginning 15:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC). Jc3s5h (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• This isn't an administrator tools matter. This is a third opinion matter, on what an article should say and whether it is appropriate and correct to say it, probably best raised as an RFC or at Project:Village pump (miscellaneous). You want the third opinions of ordinary editors here, not just of the few who read this noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's true, you should never listen to anyone who posts on this noticeboard, especially not Levivich (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In early 2012, an IP vandal added a fictious reference to a certain Alan McMasters as the inventor of the electric toaster. A year later, in early 2013, in their first edit, the user Gustave.iii (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article Alan MacMasters including a fake photoshopped photo uploaded by Gustave.iii, and added several references to the hoax to relevant articles, including R. E. B. Crompton. Although they were not active for the next five years. In 2018 they came back to editing, and continued to add references to the fictious Mr. MacMasters, such as this edit to Ogura toast in August 2018. The user continues to remain sporadically active as recently as this week. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

That article has already been nominated for deletion anyway. Patachonica (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but the fact is that they need to answer for their hoaxing or be permanently blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised they haven't even noticed this thread. Patachonica (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Well they haven't edited for 5 days, so... Canterbury Tail talk 19:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Roads4117 (talk · contribs) looks like another case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU with no non-mainspace edits and several warnings on their talk. Any ideas how to proceed? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:01, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

A "WP:COMMUNICATION is required" block may be warranted whereby the user is blocked until they begin communicating. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Do note that they are also a mobile editor, so perhaps the lack of reply isn't entirely them alone to blame. Otherwise, WP:RADAR also applies. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This user discredited me by linking discussions in completely unrelated platforms to here such as trwiki and recently used the word shit towards me. I also think they specifically reviewed Draft:Matt Hicks (engineer) to decline it with blank statements (even when they explain it one by one, they skipped important parts in the references like Red Hat - ABB deal and Matt's reported objectively huge role on it) as they showed signs of dislike towards me in the other wiki. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I see no problem here. Styyx explained their reasons for declining your draft article. The use of "shit" was not directed at you as a person. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

How is "I'm not going to repeat the same shit again and again and again" using the word "shit" towards you? If Styyx is calling anything "shit" then it's their own statement. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have explained why a few similar sources can't be used to establish notability last year in the trwiki discussion mentioned above, but it was a different subject. In the case of Matt Hicks, in the past few days, quite a few people have said that the subject isn't notable in our Discord server, but he still kept asking about it. My wording (i.e. the usage of "shit") is to show that I'm really, really, not going to take a look at this again. If you disagree with my source analysis, then I don't know how many third opinions you want to get, because you've had at least five by now. ~Styyx^Talk? 19:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am offended by the fact that you are still backchatting about me by bringing unrelated platforms' discussions to discredit me as a human being by saying "oh you did this in this unrelated wiki, those unrelated people in discord server said stuff etc." rather than actually staying on the topic. I don't see any good faith analysis of the references but a deletionist bias towards the page + your attitude of bringing unrelated crap. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not "unrelated discussions" (there is only one anyway so idk how you've ended up with a plural word): I'm just saying that I've told you this stuff before, but you keep going. Those aren't "unrelated people": they've all given you (the same) feedback about the draft we're currently discussing, that's definitely on-topic. If you don't see any good faith and are offended, I'm sorry to tell that I can't do anything about it. ~Styyx^Talk? 20:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

OP has no clue what notability policies are as evidenced here on my talk page when I removed the Hicks' article from main space for being sourced to linkedin and redhat. They need to stop wasting other editor's time with this non-notable article and now frivolous reporting of an editor who gave a clear and good-faith source analysis. Slywriter (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

In your edit they mention wanting to ask other people about the notability because they don't like what you said, and so does this one when I said it wasn't notable. How many people need to point out that the subject just isn't notable so that we can stop having to deal with the topic being squeezed into random navigation templates and talk pages? - Aoidh (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You are getting ganged to hate on the article on a clear organized bad faith via Discord to pursuade your deletionist agenda on topics you are not qualified on in an unkind behaviour that doesn't respect the work done by me. That is the problem I am trying to report. If you really think this review is good enough and the deal between Red Hat - ABB on usage of OpenShift for leading automation of bots under vice presidency of Matt is not a notable thing then you guys don't know a fly about current state of Cloud computing and just pursuade your deletionist dogma on a collective manner. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be a tech maniac to spot independent sources. ~Styyx^Talk? 21:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never ganged to hate, and you are in no position to tell me what I am or am not qualified to do, especially on a FOSS topic. You came to the discord channel to ask for opinions about the topic. You did not like the answer you received. That does not warrant accusing people of "organized bad faith" (which is quite a claim that it's being organized) or of having a deletionist agenda. Nobody is out to get you, the topic just isn't notable. - Aoidh (talk) 21:23, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Special:Diff/1099261260 - We are now moving into the attack phase. This should have just ended with a trout, but if they can not work in a civil and collaborative manner, we have a bigger issue. Slywriter (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Everyone who reviews the article is wrong. I will keep asking until I find someone who is right." - Aoidh (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh, then actually analyze the sources rather than collectively ganging with people to blankly say its not reliable without doing any proper research on the person and his role in OpenShift's development. I am not implying that the article is perfect but you guys collective organized ganged attitude of pursuading non notability while doing more research can prove otherwise is bad faith. Comrade-yutyo (talk) 21:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Everyone disagreeing with you is not evidence of some grand conspiracy, it just means they all came to the same conclusion, which just happens to disagree with your own conclusion. The sources just don't cut it. - Aoidh (talk) 21:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You'll need extraordinary proof that your conspiracy to get your article deleted is actually happening. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 23:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bacon Noodles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Star Trek: Discovery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Disclaimer: I am the primary contributor of several Star Trek articles which I have done a lot of work creating/expanding to get to GA status. This is the same way I work on many other film and TV articles with other editors, but there is less interest from other editors on these ones so the contribution stats are definitely skewed towards me by a lot. I am not surprised that someone might have WP:OWNERSHIP concerns with me because of that, but I firmly believe that there is no actual issue with my approach here. I am raising this because Bacon Noodles appears to be using these facts as a way to borderline-harass me into getting their own way in a content dispute:

• They added disputed content to Star Trek: Discovery (diff) which had some back-and-forth reverts before a discussion started
• Discussions at Talk:Star Trek: Discovery and MOS:TV both found consensus for my position and almost no support for Bacon Noodles
• Across both discussions, Bacon Noodles has accused me of ownership at least seven times. They have also left WP:WALLOFTEXT accusations at my talk page (diff 1 and diff 2) and their own (diff)
• I have pointed out the irony of this since I am working with other editors to get consensus for my position and they are not
• I have also asked them to stop these accusations multiple times as it is starting to feel like WP:HOUNDING to force me to back off, but they keep on posting them
  • I am especially concerned that they seem to be continuously posting accusations to my own talk page

Despite consensus forming to remove the disputed content that was added, Bacon Noodles's changes are still in the article and I am concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in. If they agree to back off with the accusations and remove the disputed content from the article then I will be happy to move on, but otherwise I will keep looking for ways to resolve the issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've read both discussions and they do seem to favor User:Adamstom.97. I think the ownership accusations as part of those discussion are personal attacks and distract from discussing the content. Adam seems to have been very patient here in describing the policy. I'd recommend Bacon Noodles to walk away quickly.--v/r - TP 00:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not going to dismiss it as appearing as prompted by simple content complaints or as being completely unrelated; in fact, I made a point of it that my concern stems from the ways User:Adamstom.97 dealt with an edit I made to a page, which went they then went to unusual extremes to remove. To be clear on the actuality of things, rather than a single-sided interpretation, I've compiled a fuller, not complete, timeline of interactions, to show it's more than a knee-jerk reaction to having an edit reverted. There are quite a lot of points, so I don't want to write too much above it, at this stage. But, to address the main accusations:

• "Disputed" is an objection, when there has been no previous discussion on inclusion and no factual/contextual errors; I maintain this was not sufficient to revert and, the eventual (second revert) recommendation to discuss the matter was a step in the right direction.
• "You vs Everyone consensus" is wrong because I have highlighted opposing views, as well as my own; incorrect to say a consensus was ignored, before there was a consensus. On one talk page, I even stated that I did not disagree with the general consensus and more with the potential lack of neutrality in implementation. (Referencing it as a reason to revert, 10 minutes after adding it, during an ongoing discussion)
• "WP:OWNER 7 times" close enough, however, in my first message to User talk:Adamstom.97, I made an attempt to directly address my concerns; I did not assert it was any one edit or statistic, but what I felt was a trend that I had observed. WP:WALLOFTEXT was to attempt more objectivity, to quote likely indicators and perceived evidence matching.
• "No consensus building" if the complaint is I don't spend enough time on Wikipedia, that's the WP:PULLRANK point. I have explained my viewpoint, in response to concerns from different users ([224], [225], [226]); I don't keep refreshing the page and to expect a loop of repeating phrases is frivolous.
• "WP:HOUNDING" first talk page message clear on appreciation for WP:STEWARDSHIP, not "dislike, revert, remove, silence." MOS:TV specifically called me "offending user" and "pointed" to respond. first was large, to be unambiguous. second was paraphrased version, to reduce WP:WALLOFTEXT, after replying on my own talk page. Automatic notification on both reverts and reply on own talk.
• "Concerned about what they will do to try and keep them in" I'm insulted by this; after all the things Adamstom.97 has done, rather than wait for the discussion to end naturally, or another editor to implement changes, I am baselessly accused as being likely to do the unthinkable (whatever that may be). This is one of the prime reasons I'm concerned; if the response to a concern is this instead of just saying "I disagree", how are first-time editors meant to respond in a similar situation (again)? All over what started as one line about rerun ratings in a section on viewership and a statement on disagreeing about reverting to remove, before discussing.

1. I added referenced content to Star Trek: Discovery, which I deemed relevant to a specific section on viewership; this displayed as one sentence.
2. Back-and-forth reverting, initiated by User:Adamstom.97 (two each, additions maintained on last)
3. Shortly before the final reversion (taken by me), I had begun a discussion on the article's talk page, as suggested in a reversion comment from Adamstom.97
4. The immediate response was that this was "out of line" due to not having their endorsement to add it
5. Several days later, the article was reverted by Adamstom.97 on the perceived grounds of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, as well as a reference to additions to a manual of style
6. Counter to that action, I reverted to the previous (still containing the original edit from myself), on the grounds of perceived WP:STONEWALLING, unjustified WP:BRD (WP:BRD-NOT); the same page also mentioned the latter as a potential sign of WP:OWNERSHIP, which I chose to apply in line with each
7. Partially based on the talk page discussion, I revised the edit to include multiple new references and background, addressing points raised on notability, source reliability and context
8. Adamstom.97's objection changed to "bare minimum" and WP:UNDUE, from lack of same qualities.
9. Prompted by the mention of the manual of style, I reviewed the page's history and found that the specific reference to reruns (applicable to the original edit in dispute) was added by Adamstom.97, shortly before their reversion, in the previous point; however, the edits to the manual did have a discussion with a general consensus among those discussing
10. The changes were reverted by myself, on the procedural grounds that it was applied to the background of the Star Trek: Discovery discussion and directly used by Adamstom.97 to justify removing the edit, despite that ongoing discussion not yet having an apparent consensus (most recent discussion, prior to Adamstom.97's reversion)
11. On the manual of style talk page, I added my views on the change and emphasis that my concerns were based on application, but also the way that Adamstom.97 lacked sufficient individual neutrality to implement the change due to veiled attacks directed towards me as "offending user" and "someone who is trying to add [rerun ratings] without any commentary [... not] in appropriate context". On the claim that I am "hounding", the timings are clear a response on the MOS was expected, even requested, although slightly before my revision on context/relevance
12. In response to my concerns on neutrality and effect of the change, Adamston.97's replied that I had "forced" my "own personal view upon multiple other editors" and "[keep] doing whatever the hell you want"
13. As a final response, on the MOS page, I reiterated that my concern was separate from the Star Trek page, how so, and my issue that the MOS change appeared to bypass the ongoing Star Trek discussion
14. Finally, to respond to what I had felt reached a concerning level of uncivil behaviour, I posted to User talk:Adamstom.97, as recommended by Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing with incivility, when no one article is the focus; I even included a point where I acknowledge it is likely to appear personal or biased, so to compensate, I included quotes from WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR on the signs of it and, what I felt, although retrospectively it may have been an overreach, were objective statistical comparisons to demonstrate the trend in reverting good faith edits by multiple editors, being the overwhelming single contributor to related articles (including how it is not on its own enough), and going as far as changing manuals of styles, what I continue to feel was, to bypass discussion, and not typical in comparable examples.
15. The message was removed/reverted by Adamstom.97, responded to at my own user talk page, dismissing it as WP:HOUNDING, entirely personal and that it would be dealt with by "reporting you for harassment"
16. I replied identically on two pages, first with a paraphrased version on User talk:Adamstom.97, in a format less likely to be WP:WALLOFTEXT. In my second reply, on my talk page, I placed links to the original messages for context, I reiterated my observation of WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR signs, how it was not towards any specific content or edit with a trend, and my concern at dismissing it as retribution.
17. User:Adamstom.97 submitted their interpretation of events as perceived harassment, and brought it here.

I'll be clear, I do not think everything was said perfectly, and there has definitely been regrettably charged language at times, not always; although I can't quote every policy and when one should have been used instead of another, I still believe the patterns show my concerns were/are genuine and not purely out of contempt over a reversion, where I have freely highlighted concerns to prospective editors. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 11:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I seem to be the only administrator who has taken an interest here. So, let me be clear. I read your timeline. You have a serious case of not listening. Consensus is against you. The MOS doesn't support your insertion of material. There is no ownership issues here, you're just wrong. And continuing to push that as your central point is becoming a personal attack. So, literally shut the fuck up and do something else for awhile because your behavior is bordering on tendentious. Stop it. You're wrong.--v/r - TP 01:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Two things: firstly, I did not and have not spent 100% of my time tediously meddling over one page, or spamming someone to go away. Secondly, my main point wasn't WP:OWN, it's that there was a discussion and that getting a consensus, either way, from that, should be more important than heading straight for the undo button or to retroactively apply a new MOS rule instead - even if it requires patience of more than a couple days to get a consensus - and that my reaction, although clearly not the right one, did not spring from a vacuum.

If you have a view on the article's content, you should share it on the talk page, especially if it's so obviously wrong that I should have predicted a future consensus against and an MOS change mentioning a show's only TV viewership, albeit rerun, statistics on a section about general viewership, so much so that it's been emphasised. If the claim is that I went to a user talk page, instead of discussing the content with civility, bringing it up here isn't much better, particularly when I haven't claimed a consensus or proposed changing any manual of style as reason to "insert material". I regret how I said things on Adamstom.97's talk page. I do not regret adding a sentence on TV ratings to a section on viewership, before there was an explicit consensus for or against doing so. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I note that Bacon Noodles features their first edit to Adamstom.97's page several times above, describing it as "an attempt to directly address my concerns". This extremely large edit contains no diffs, but all the more quotes from the WP:OWN policy. That is a very strange way of debating; it means many accusations, phrased in the voice of policy, and no evidence. (Bacon Noodles's expressed regret above that "I can't quote every policy" seems misplaced. Please don't keep quoting policy!) Adamstom97 is told for example that "in many cases (but not all), single editors engaged in ownership conflicts are also primary contributors to the article", "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing", "An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary"", with many more quotes from WP:OWN. The renewed shorter version of that edit that Bacon Noodles posted later is better only in being shorter (still no diffs), and worse in being more aggressive: "before you patronise me into calling all this random trumped-up accusations because I've felt your wrath after adding one sentence on a stat, which I felt was relevant, even if that is not the subsequent consensus, have a little humility" (bold in the original), "Your opinion isn't worthless, but neither is an unregistered user's, who may also have seen Star Trek, but isn't aware of every Wikipedia policy, manual or a self-anointed article owner filtering every change." As TParis says, these are attacks. You are wrong, Bacon Noodles. If you persist, a site block for tendentious editing and personal attacks, or a block from Star Trek pages, will become likely. A "Star Trek pages" block may indeed be impractical, as they are so numerous, making a site block more likely. Bishonen | tålk 07:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC).

The way it's highlighted here, it is an undeniably aggressive and personal tone in the second talk page message; I don't make any excuse for that, it's stated on a number of policies, "don't fight perceived fire with definite fire." The only fraction of a reason I can give is that as an immediate reaction to, what I felt was, a dismissive reply "WP:WALLOFTEXT" and that to be shorter meant being blunt - which shouldn't have meant, although it clearly became, inappropriately rude. I maintain my motive was more than over a single edit and that the article talk page shows that I did aim to constructively address similar concerns from different editors, as well as making changes to alleviate specific issues raised, and did not make any edits solely in spite; if I could have done only one thing differently, after everything that's happened, it would have been to start the discussion as soon as the edit was first reverted. Messages regarding WP:OWN are a given and also should have been handled better, without the need for this.

To reiterate, I can see that my tone did cross the line, in my messages to User talk:Adamstom.97; this is inexcusable, regardless of the intent, which, as a minimum, requires an attempt at apologising (which I will do separately in a more appropriate and direct place). However, what I do entirely reject is the notion that I be blocked from all Star Trek pages because, regardless of how I have acted over the response to an edit, I have not, let alone persistently, vandalised, disruptively edited, prevented anyone else from contributing or allowed my own opinion conflate into unreferenced content, on any front-facing encyclopedic article, Star Trek-related or otherwise, nor do I have a history of it; if I am truly ignorant of where/when that was in fact the case, I'd like that to please be pointed out to me. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 00:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Neplota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
We currently have an editor (User:Neplota) having multiple slow edit wars in the middle of short talks and an RFC. Canada, UK, Japan.The main purpose of the edits is to add data to the infobox that despite being in other articles is being contested in these cases . I do find this edit odd that removed the data they are trying to add on other pages? Is this someone here just to mess with us and waste our time? Moxy- 16:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, the Australia page. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

this edit is to that page...what is odd is they removed the data they are trying to add in other places. Saying "as the categories included are very ambiguous e.g., oceanian"..but this is what they are trying to add to other pages ...clasification with the term "oceanian". Are they just trying to start problmes/debates all over?Moxy- 17:11, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There's more countries, he's made such bold changes to, as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

There are similar issues with this editor at United Kingdom per this thread. However, they abruptly stopped editing when this thread at ANI was opened - ANI flu? - but a pause for the editor to take stock may be helpful and all that's needed. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well he's active again. GoodDay (talk) 09:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Simply a net negative Copyright Moxy- 00:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:3RR warning issued on user's page for three reverts in a few hours on Jesus. Justification given is "restoration of a stable version" of the lead, and consensus claimed on talk page where I can find none (and plenty in disagreement). The edits user is trying to restore are 16 days old. 4th revert has not yet occurred at this time. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Matza Pizza: has repeatedly added unsourced information to the article Elizabeth Holtzman and has made personal attacks such as "dishonest and biased editor" and "You have made baseless and biased edits and accusations against me". Jon698 (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Jon698: has repeatedly removed essential information from the article Elizabeth Holtzman and has made false claims and personal attacks against me, such as falsely accusing me of "add(ing) unsourced material" and "vandalism".

Matza Pizza (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Holtzman's parents immigrated from Russia. Her father was a trial lawyer, her mother the head of Hunter College's Russian department. Her twin brother, Robert, was a neurosurgeon." had no sourcing in all of your edits. Other parts of your edits repeated information already within the article or were unnecessary. Jon698 (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jon698: there is a washingtonpost.com link with "As the daughter of hard-working Russian immigrants, Elizabeth Holtzman was weaned on success. Her father is a trial lawyer, her mother became the head of Hunter College's Russian department, and her twin brother Robert is a neurosurgeon." it in on the paragraph under that. However, Matza Pizza's comment of "Undid vandalism by a dishonest and biased editor. Every word is clearly sourced, without a doubt. Information is highly relevant." is an attack.לילך5 (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• The source makes it worse as "Her father was a trial lawyer, her mother the head of Hunter College's Russian department. Her twin brother, Robert, was a neurosurgeon." and "Her father is a trial lawyer, her mother became the head of Hunter College's Russian department, and her twin brother Robert is a neurosurgeon." and are barely different and too close of a paraphrase. Also that sentence was not sourced as Matza Pizza did not leave a citation at the end of the sentence. Jon698 (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the citation wasn't at the end of the paragraph, it was at the end of the next one. You are right it is almost like a direct copy.לילך5 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sundayclose (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Krimuk2.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It all began when Sundayclose decided to remove well-sourced information from Aamir Khan filmography's page here. Since then, the user has filed bogus "complaints" about me, one for "vandalism", the other at ANI, and another here. As expected, the user received no support in either three. I did not engage with this editor at any of these pages. Since then, the user has gone on a WP:HOUNDING spree, reverting no less than three of my edits at different pages:

• At Marisa Tomei's page
• At Kristen Dunst's page, which goes directly against WP:ROLEBIO, and was reverted by another editor
• At Dharma Productions's page, in which the user readded a shelved film that was deleted following this discussion, which I had removed from the listicle.

I did not engage in conflict with this user at any of pages, and I do not wish to either. I just want this hounding to stop, so I can go back to editing without having to deal with this harassment. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: I didn't bother to respond in that ANI thread in part because it only concerned a single edit and it looked like you were trying to improve. But Sundayclose seemed to be largely correct. How on earth s the information well sourced when the only source does not support the information? And why are you telling other editor's they need to provide sources for information you are insisting on preserving? You need to quickly learn that it's your responsibility to provide sources if you want to keep information in articles if you want to keep editing here. And these sources need to actually support the information you're trying to keep. If you don't you're likely to be blocked. Nil Einne (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the three sources provided does support the information, which another uninvolved editor confirmed as well. Please have a better look at them: one, two, and three. Even if it did not (which it does), that is no excuse for hounding me across articles. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I missed one of the sources in the diff as it was a ref defined elsewhere. You're right that the other source does mention he was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Actor. However it does not mention the "National Film Award – Special Mention (also for Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak)" neither for Raakh nor for Qayamat Se Qayamat Tak. So I apologise for my mistake as one of the awards was sourced. In that case Sundayclose should not have removed the film. Technically the other sources does support Aamir Khan's appearance in the film and his role which I should have made clearer in my earlier comment (I tried to correct it but was too late) so even under my earlier incorrect assumption Sundayclose should have just removed the awards but that's IMO a more minor thing when a most of the information there isn't sourced as I incorrectly though. Note there was no 3 sources as can be seen in this perma link [228], only two sources. There may be 3 sources now as I said, one of the reasons I didn't get involved is you seemed to be trying to improve. However you cannot fault an editor for correctly identifying that you were claiming information was sources when it was not. You need to provide sources when adding information, not after many reverts. I should mention that the other reason I didn't get involved is whatever else Sundayclose should have opened a talk page discussion before coming to ANI. But you should have opened that talk page discussion as well so it's a bit of a wash. And the fact you were, and are, still falsely claiming the information was all sources when it wasn't is IMO far more concerning that anything Sundayclose did. You cannot claim the information is completely sources when part of it is not. If you later add sources, great, but you should be acknowledging you made a mistake rather than coming to ANI claiming you made no mistake. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please understand that I did not come to ANI to discuss the Khan filmography article. I mentioned that for context, and I quickly added a better source to that article when I realised what was missing. That one revert was my mistake, and I never denied it. I think owning up to one's mistake, and correcting them is part of an editor's work here. And I did just that. But I came here to talk about the subsequent hounding that I am being subjected to. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I made some minor changes to my response after this response. Nil Einne (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And what? Right above you claimed the information was well sourced "remove well-sourced information from" when you now acknowledge it was partly unsourced and you only later added sources. You then replied to me and claimed there were 3 sources "the three sources provided" when there were only 2 at the time of the diff [229] you linked to. While I was wrong about there being only one source and the information being almost totally unsourced for which I've apologised, I was right about it being partly unsourced at the time something you seem to think doesn't matter when you are the one who incorrectly told us it was well sourced. While it's great you later improved and added sources, it doesn't explain why you are claiming stuff that isn't true. And when you came to ANI. When you open an ANI thread, your actions are always under scrutiny. And since Sundayclose has good reason to be concerned over your edits as you seem to think it's acceptable to revert challenges of unsourced information and insist the editor trying to remove the information is the one who needs to provide sources and then try and mislead others about the information being sourced when you only later added sources, it's likely fair for them to scrutinise your edits. If you're acknowledging your mistakes, why did you mislead us about them until I challenged you (partly incorrectly for which I apologise, partly correctly)? Nil Einne (talk) 08:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, I do agree they're a bit concerning. While it's IMO fine for Sundayclose to scrutinise Krimuk 2.0 edits, they should ensure they have a good reason for reverts and none of those look that great. If Krimuk 2.0 had better acknowledged their earlier faults (both that the information they were trying to keep was partly unsourced which they've finally acknowledged but also that they were wrong to claim the other editor needs to provide sources), we wouldn't need the above mess so IMO Krimuk 2.0's opening comments are even more unfortunate. I'm also concerned about Sundayclose's false accusation of vandalism, a clear a personal attack since while Krimuk 2.0's editing may have faults, they're clearly not vandalism. Ultimately while Krimuk 2.0's editing may have problems, unless Sundayclose can better control themselves they need to leave the scrutiny to someone else. Nil Einne (talk) 08:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Having been the victim of WP:HOUNDING myself I'm aware of how much it can make the object of such attention feel. After evaluating the diffs I am not seeing a case made for hounding, however per Nil Einne's comments above looking at the recent contributions [230] does show a pattern of recent focus on Krimuk's editing. I agree that recent reverts were suboptimal and perhaps Sundayclose should definitely take care in their action. If it were to continue in this vein a case for hounding could be made but I don't think it currently stands up to scrutiny. This is not to dismiss Krimuk's concerns but to suggest that perhaps they've not yet risen to a point requiring admin action. WCM_email 08:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all content added by Josephnjata (talk · contribs) has been a copyright violation taken verbatim from sources. I've already left messages on their talk page, and the user is new, so I'm not requesting a block (unless they continue). Rather, just rev/deletion to the multiple articles they've edited. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether WP:ANI is the right place to report these disruptive efforts to get an article into article space on an unreleased film that is too soon, but this has been going on for nearly a year.

There have been efforts at least since October 2021 to get an article into article space for the unreleased Indian big-budget film Pathan or Pathaan, with a long history of gaming the system, including by gaming the titles, by changing the English spelling or adding a qualifier. We currently have in draft space:

• Draft:Pathaan (2023 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Pathaan (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We have also had:

• Pathan (Film)
• Pathan(film)
• Draft:Pathan(2022)
• Draft:Draft:Pathan(film)

There have been three deletion discussions, all deleting articles as too soon:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (3rd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film)

Much of the activity with all forms of the titles has been by IP addresses and by sockpuppet accounts. However, a recent sockpuppet report was closed with no finding of sockpuppetry. The admin noted that they were not ruling out UPE. This is a film article, so that it is hard to tell UPE from good-faith disruptive editing by ultras.

At this point I think that the best administrative action is to semi-protect the two drafts and any more drafts, and to provide extended-confirmed create protection for at least:

• Pathan (film)
• Pathaan (film)
• Pathaan (2023 film) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Robert McClenon: And an FYI standard discretionary sanctions are in place for all article India articles, broadly construed. Considering your info that may be needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:b133:30fa:8dc0:5f55:86f4:c8a1 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Fairly2k3z (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Fairly2k3z has made personal attacks towards other editors (including me), such as a legal threat toward Kaseng55, and one towards me (I think). Furthermore, he has done multiple disruptive edits such as here on the Luis van Gaal page, and straight up removes/griefs the content at the Mark Noble article. Patachonica (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked by Bradv. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, could you revoke his TPA? He's been posting impolite messages on his talkpage ever since he was blocked. Patachonica (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

36.75.201.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP address is making personal attacks to editors who revert his edits.

I have feeling that this IP address may belong to a long term abuse user named Blue Barrette Bam. Kaseng55 (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you protect the page The Cat and the Canary (1927 film)? He's coming back with different IPs.

IPs blocked. Page protected. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is Troy von Tempest (talk · contribs) whose latest edits have been era changes ignoring WP:ERA - from BC to BCE in this case. Some are also engvar changes. Some are just arbitrary, eg [232] where he changes the correct F190 D to F190D. This one is just weird[233] he claims to be changing the Japanese date format but he isn't following Date and time notation in Japan. There are just so many bad edits I doubt that anyone is going to find time to fix them. I've done a few of the more recent ones. User:Beyond My Ken warned him about "typos' in 2018; User:BilCat warned him about unusual styles, particularly date styles. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree, those aren't typos, and this use of misleading edit summaries is wrong. Furthermore, the canned edit summaries of "Fixed typo" or "fixed typo" are in my experience often couple with bad edits, to the point that they should probably be given a vandalism score boost in anti-vandal bots, though in this case it isn't vandalism, just subpar editing. Pikavoom ^Talk 10:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the editor is editing via mobile, which offers a limited number of canned edit summaries which can make it look like you have no choice but to pick one. This editor may not be intending to be misleading. valereee (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee that doesn't deal with the content of their edits. Doug Weller talk 14:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the comment was purely that the actual edit summaries might not be intentionally disingenuous. valereee (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Can a bot be fashioned to make the change sitewide? Randy Kryn (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• Happy to permablock him, though he doesn't actually edit that much - newest screen of contribs takes you back to Nov 2020. Or a very stiff warning. Johnbod (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Since he’s using mobile, a warning might not be seen. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh. Another case of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 15:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  If a warning notice cannot be seen, then an attention-getting block is justified. I recommend this action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulpfiction621 attempts to revert vandalism, often doing a few edits within a minute. They also place NJ portal links at a high pace. However, they often makes mistakes, reverting non-vandalism as vandalism and besmirching the reputation of those they revert. I noticed this after they reverted me and wrongly called me a vandal. After they did that, I looked back at their edits and located five instances in which they reverted non-vandalism as vandalism and besmirched the reputation of those reverted. I tried to discuss this with them, but instead of discussing this with me they blanked my analysis on their talk, and called me a vandal again. Below is a listing of some of the bad reverts and attacks Pulpfiction621 made at users yesterday:

bad revert 1 - the organisation is designated as terrorist, not vandalism. attack charging vandalism at me.

bad revert 2 - isn't vandalism as Cursa is just the final boss, she hijacks Bowser's army who are her minions. attack charging vandalism at 45.51.74.102.

bad revert 3 - isn't vandalism, and if anyone is vandalising it is Pulpfiction621, because the actor is named Marcia Gay Harden not Marcia Hay Garden, the show is real. Pulpfiction621 also left the sentence without a period at the end. Despite this 122.177.249.150 was attacked. I agree those shows don't belong way up there in the top of the article, but vandalism they are not.

bad revert 4 - Probably the worst here. Not only isn't this vandalism, the information posted is cited to https://nicholasg.me/blog/road-to-college-president and was posted earlier in the day by NicholasG04. However this blog posting does not contain the information posted, and the information removed from the article contains information on a kid, Athena Gallagher, without any supporting source at all. It is not obvious the blog post is even about the college, but even if you guess that it doesn't say what was posted and is even irrelevant. 82.11.89.123's summary of "unimportant info" was pertinent. After restoring this to the article 82.11.89.123 was attacked.

bad revert 5 - 164.106.45.19's linked to a source for the name change https://alleghanyjournal.com/aj_article_test.php?ndx=23620 but despite this it was promptly reverted within the same minute and 164.106.45.19 was attacked.

Attack number 6 of the day was blanking my attempt to discuss with them and calling me a "vandal". לילך5 (talk) 04:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree the above reverts are mostly wrong. I took a stroll through Pulpfiction621's talk page, which is filled with users posting concerns, and Pulpfiction621 posting an acknowledgement and swiftly blanking them. They appear focused on reverting IP editors. The history of miscommunication here is alarming:

• Improper reverting: 4 February 2022, 21 April 2022, 24 April 2022, 27 May 2022,
• BLP: warned 7 April 2022, but yet made this edit with unsourced BLP information on 2 June 2022 and providing this wrong explanation
• Another vandalism charge that appears baseless: 1 July 2022
• Copyright, coyping without attribution: 13 July 2022, 14 July 2022
• Welcoming spam: 8 April 2022
• Portal spam: 14 July 2022
• Unreliable sources: 9 February 2022 (revert with no reply)
• Edit summary issues: 31 January 2022

There are no archives on the talk page, and these sections are blanked an hour after they reply.Pikavoom ^Talk 08:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Meters, Doug Weller, Fastily, Ponyo, Vsmith, Lcodyh803, DanCherek, and Diannaa: who were involved with some of these warnings. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping. I notified Pulpfiction621 about attribution requirements when copying within Wikipedia, for content that they had copied from Nuclear power into Nuclear reactor. In their reply, they claimed that they were the original contributor of the content, and then removed the entire post from their talk page 41 minutes later before I had a chance to see it and reply. But that claim was false – they have only made two edits to Nuclear power, this one and this one, that don't include all of the text that was copied. As an example, the first sentence that was copied, as well as the parts about M. King Hubbert, has been present in the Nuclear power article for years, long before Pulpfiction621 joined Wikipedia. So I was a bit taken aback by their reply since it should be easy to remember what you did (and didn't) write yourself. DanCherek (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The top editor by far to Nuclear power is Boundarylayer who has a history of sanctions and was indef blocked at the time this was copied, and still is. Coincidence? Pikavoom ^Talk 12:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Boundarylayer was active until they were blocked just last month, so I think the case for sockpuppetry is pretty thin. DanCherek (talk) 12:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a bunch more examples in their contributions. I know rollback hasn't been used in these instances, but somebody who clearly doesn't understand what vandalism is (or is just too lazy to actually check what they're reverting) shouldn't have that right. – ².O.^Boxing 09:01, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I see five rollbacks, this one is wrong as is this that I listed above as a BLP issue. But the problem isn't rollback, it's reverting non-vandalism edits as vandalism and warning IP editors that they are vandalising or are disruptive when they aren't. Pikavoom ^Talk 09:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As the admin who originally assigned rollback to this individual, I'll now be revoking it. The reverts linked above are grossly inappropriate and fall well below the threshold for acceptable use of rollback. To be clear, I'm aware that these reverts were technically performed with the undo function, but rollback could have just as easily been used, as these are clear attempts to revert "vandalism". -FASTILY 09:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am still wrapping my head around User talk:86.175.107.183 and James Desborough (journalist). 86.175.107.183 made good edits on a biography. Pulpfiction621 reverts them five times without edit summaries and even rollbacks once while placing successive warnings up to a final uw-vandalism4 warning. The IP is then reported to WP:AIV as a vandal by 73.22.122.66, a IP now blocked by Blablubbs for being CLCStudent, and 86.175.107.183 is then blocked for a week by Kinu a couple of hours later, but with no additional edits in the interim until the block elapsed. 86.175.107.183's actions were legitimate, even required, on a biography. This kind of information on affairs and scandals can't be present without sources. Pulpfiction621's actions have consequences here. Pikavoom ^Talk 11:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
• I think it's appropriate to raise the question as to whether the editor should also have pending changes removed. How can somebody who has such a clear lack of understanding of relevant PAGs be trusted to determine whether an edit is suitable for mainspace? – ².O.^Boxing 12:35, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'd like to say that I apologize profusely to all who have been negatively impacted by my actions. They were never intentional and I have learned from all of the mistakes that I have made in my effort to improve the encyclopedia. I would first like to apologize to @לילך5 for reverting the edit regarding the terrorism. I have seen it used in instances in the past in which it had been clear vandalism and was quick to assume that it was the case in this instance, it will not happen again. Additionally, I apologize to @Pikavoom and others for my other procedural errors in the past regarding my Talk page and not knowing the procedure for how to copy my work to other pages. Both of those instances happened within close periods of each other and I have not made that mistake since then. Additionally, I would like to learn how to make an archive on my Talk Page so that there can be that in the future, I was under the impression that if an issue was resolved I could remove that from my page. Clearly I thought this in error and I take responsibility and apologize for that.

  That being said, I have reverted a significant amount of vandalism from the encyclopedia and revert a strong degree of vandalism and have long held the rollback permission without abusing it. I would respectfully ask that it be restored and please consider my overall reverting history in your consideration. For my work I have been thanked by @Arjayay @Bartallen2 @JeffSpaceman and, most prominently, @LPS and MLP Fan and many, many, others for my extensive efforts in ensuring the encyclopedia is as vandalism free as possible. I would like to continue my work on the encyclopedia and will be sure to be as responsible as possible moving forward, only adding to pages when it is done properly and in a way that adds positively to the content of pages and only reverting vandalism when I am sure, beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is not harmful. I will also create an archive on my talk page if someone sends me a tutorial on how to do so. Thank you all for your understanding and patience. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 13:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but cynical ol' me doesn't quite buy this miraculous 24-hour turnaround. In less than a day you've gone from reverting the OP's undeniably-good-faithed explanation of why you were wrong in giving them a vandalism warning, to now--with no additional explanation of why it was wrong--having learned from your mistakes? How? Because it ended up here? You also haven't explained the other examples of your bad reverts and vandalism warnings. I think the fact that an IP editor was blocked due to your bad judgement far outweighs any barnstars or 'thanks' notifications you've received.

I think it would be a bad idea to reinstate rollback (and pending changes should be removed) until you've given an explanation of how you made these mistakes, and then demonstrated over a period of time that you actually understand what WP:Vandalism is (a requirement for possessing those rights). You don't need rollback to smash some vandals. The undo and restore buttons work just fine.

Regarding talk page comments, you've done nothing wrong there per WP:OWNTALK. Setting up an archive is optional (something which I never intend to do. If anybody wants to see what naughty shenanigans I've been engaged in, you can search for them in the history). – ².O.^Boxing 15:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I hear your criticism loud and clear, and while criticism is often warranted on Wikipedia, I hope to earn back community trust if I have indeed lost it. I may have gone too hard on IP users in the past such as in February, unfortunately I suffer from Asperger's and can get a bit too obsessed with routine and thus, have been too critical of IP editors in the past. Luckily, I have been able to get my disability under control and have refrained from being overly critical of IP users for almost half a year. I appreciate your patience and understanding with the disabilities and challenges that I face and appreciate the accommodation in accordance with WP: Accessibility. I'd like to ask that rollback be re-instated on a month long trial basis. I promise to show that I will not abuse this trust again and, if somehow I do, even by mistake, then by all means follow through with a revocation of the appropriate permission. @Fastily Pulpfiction621 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you've previously read it but a thorough read of WP:Vandalism would be advisable. I (a nobody, btw) think your explanation is more than promising. I still personally believe rollback shouldn't be reinstated until you've demonstrated you can adequately identify what is not vandalism, but that would be up to admins (as I said, you don't need rollback to continue your anti-vandal efforts. And probationary periods for user rights are quite common, if I recall, so that could be an option).

My concern was with the vandalism issue. I don't have any comments on the sourcing problems Pikavoom raised though. That's a seperate issue. – ².O.^Boxing 18:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Pulpfiction621, thank you for listening. I felt insulted when you just blanked your page at me, but I'm so happy we're all working together now on improving the encylopedia. לילך5 (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

As you said, you need to earn the trust back. Show us you've learned from this experience by spending several months establishing a track record of good edits. Rollback is not going to be restored by any admin until this happens. -FASTILY 00:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for listening. I hope to gain back the community's trust in time and will continue my work to improve the encyclopedia. Pulpfiction621 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The user Sauce5544 is currently engaged in a spree of additions to articles related to Egyptian modern history. Unfortunately, all of the material is unsourced, and, despite exhortation, the user seems to have their ears closed to the need to actually source the content they are adding. They've technically continued passed four warnings for the unsourced additions, but their behaviour is not typically vandalistic in nature, so advanced vetting and reporting is not really appropriate - and yet, an editor with absolutely zero interest in sourcing content is more of a hinderance than a help to the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked to try to get their attention, as this is a mobile editor. valereee (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

So what were saying here is that their content...is unsauced? *sunglasses* GeneralNotability (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

groan valereee (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

damn ... missed a trick there Iskandar323 (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@GeneralNotability: this is probably such a simple joke, but the punchline escapes me. help lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lettherebedarklight, it's a pun on the username and editing issue. Sauce5544, unsourced: unsauced. valereee (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand i'm retiring. lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 11:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP address 66.65.110.16 has been making very biased changes to the article on Jonas Mekas (and, recently, the Naujosios Birzu zinios Wikipedia article). These edits are geared towards obscuring Mekas's role in working for two far right and Nazi-collaborationist newspapers during World War II in Lithuania, both in the lead section as well as the controversy section. This IP address only edits the aforementioned pages, and persistently deletes well-sourced, cited content from the pages. This is a very serious violation of Wikipedia's ethics and norms. Lolkafka1888 (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the IP address's edit history and there is a pattern there of removing information from the Jonas Mekas article. I posted a warning on the talk page for the IP address.--SouthernNights (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Matthead (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff 1 - the user Matthead added original research to the first sentence of the article. It might be a WP:PROMO violation as well if you look at where they've placed their content and the links they've added. Diff 2 - I reverted and referred to WP:OR. Diff 3 - I left a note on their talk page. The note was reverted. It means the user is aware about the issue. Diff 4 - the user misused their rollback tool and rollbacked me without providing an edit summary. Diff 5 - and after I reverted them again they baselessly accused me of using Wikipedia to promote propaganda by abusing a real name of real people. Diff 6 - I created a new topic on article's talk page. And explained everything in detail. I asked them to stop making baseless accusations and to self revert, but they did not listen. Diff 7 - Instead I've got another pile of baseless accusations and uncivil behaviour. The core issue was not addressed at all. To be honest, I've looked at this thread (yes, about Matthead) - AE thread - and this situation is just a continuation the situation described in the AE thread. The same pattern - Repeated accusations against others (of edit warring and stalking) while edit warring himself. Bad faith towards other editors. It looks like not much has changed since then. --Renat 12:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm lost. You say it's original research but there is a source for it, and I did a quick search and ancestory.com agrees that Putler is a sir name, although they don't mention Germany specifically. So it doesn't strike me as that odd to include that fact in the lede of an article specifically called "Putler". The intensity of your language when talking to him on talk page, and even in this report, almost smacks of WP:OWN. Your language towards him seems to be just as hostile as his towards you, although I've only checked a couple of times, and it was you that started the dialog. I'm not going to lie, when I followed your diff showing prior instances of his problematic behavior at WP:AE, and saw the date was over 13 years ago, I thought "wtf?". Diffs from 2009 aren't really helpful to show a pattern of abuse. Unless you're saying he does this every 13 years, like clockwork. Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be more of a problem than he is with the aggressive tone. I was going to ask how this was possibly WP:PROMO, but I don't think it matters, as you didn't bother to explain it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown I can explain and I also want to ask you something about your comment here. 1) Diff 1 - Matthead replaced the first sentence of the lead section of the Putler article with "Putler is a German surname^[1] and a software company.^[2]" It is original research, because the first source added by them is a main page of a restaurant's website. The source does not say that "Putler is a German surname". It does not even say that "Putler is a surname". The second source for the "software company" part is a main page of that software company's website. The primary topic for "Putler" is a neologism. Currently, other meanings of the word "Putler" can not be mentioned in the Putler article due to lack of reliable sources. And Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable sources. 2) You mentioned ancestory.com, but I do not see how is this website is relevant to this particular discussion. Could you explain why you mentioned it? There are no ancestory.com in Matthead's edits. Anyway ancestory.com is a generally unreliable source per WP:RSP. If in this case ancestory.com can be used as a reliable source to justify the inclusion of the "surname" meaning - it needs to be discussed on article's talk page.

  "The intensity of your language when talking to him on talk page, and even in this report, almost smacks of WP:OWN."

  In what way the intensity of my language suggests that I am violating WP:OWN? I can reword, because I do not think that this article is mine. And I never said that it is mine.

  "Your language towards him seems to be just as hostile as his towards you, although I've only checked a couple of times, and it was you that started the dialog. Can you give an example of my language that you think is hostile towards them? The user accused me of "using Wikipedia to promote propaganda by abusing a real name of real people" and "... dragging the oh-so-clever propaganda hate speech into English Wikipedia ..." before I filed this report. They also edited my comment which is against WP:TPO (see the topic name change here - diff talk). These accusations are false and inappropriate. I am not using Wikipedia to promote propaganda and I am not "dragging" hate speech into Wikipedia. I really want to understand how would someone will see my language as hostile as the user's language.

  "Maybe I'm missing something, but you seem to be more of a problem than he is with the aggressive tone." If you think that I am more of a problem, it means you think that I should've done something differently, yes? Initially, I reacted to this edit - diff 1. Me being more of a problem starts with this reaction or later? There is a sequence of actions so I want to understand what exactly made you think that I am more of a problem then Matthead. Renat 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• "The primary topic for "Putler" is a neologism." That is decided by consensus, not the person who creates the article. I didn't say his edit was perfect, just that adding the fact that the Putler is a common sir name is not really a big deal in an article that is covering several uses of the term "Putler". Whether it is in the lede or in the body (lede is most common) is immaterial. I mentioned Ancestory.com simply because that was the first place I looked for the name "putler" and instantly found that the claim that it is a sir name is true. I already covered this. I'm not going to break down the rest of my comment because it is already above. Again, the intensity of your comments is rather high. Is there something I think you should have done differently? Yes, be less intense and just use the talk page. Accusing him of PROMO without any evidence is also casting aspersions. On the talk page, he provided examples of his claims, after your overly aggressive attack. You are very demanding about all this, and that isn't conducive to finding consensus. You said "Can you provide a quote? 2) "Putler" as "Putin+Hitler" is a primary topic, not a surname or a software company." and he elsewhere gave you two example from website. It sounds like Putler needs to be broken down into two articles. But the fact is, you are taking a word that is used for a persons name, and creating an article with that same last name, and you have turned it into an article on why that name is a pejorative. You shouldn't be shocked that some will take exception with that. On that talk page, you talk about how ancestory.com and other examples of "Putler" being a common sir name are "unreliable sources". You completely missed the point, the links weren't provided to be included into the article (the same as mine), they were provided to EDUCATE you that Putler is a real sir name, and some consideration must be taken. But you don't care, and that is the problem. You aren't using common sense or common courtesy here. So yes, you are the problem that instigating more problems, and your overly assertive attitude is ramping up the drama. From an admin perspective, it is you that is being unreasonable, combative, and intentionally obtuse. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

User Matthead violated WP:TPO again - diff. And I already asked them not to edit my comments. --Renat 21:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

RenatUK, no one owns the section title, WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN. And as Talk Pages are to discuss Article Content, not Editors- your section title is inappropriate, though I wouldn't call their pointy replacement an improvement. Slywriter (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Slywriter I hope this one is better. Renat 21:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User LionAjk who I believe is a sock puppet has vandalized numerous articles and has received warning from editors. Whenever he or she receives the warnings the refresh their talk page and go on vandalizing. Uricdivine (talk) 13:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You have made an allegation of socking without naming the master or providing any evidence. Indeed, you have provided no diffs at all.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason I included socking is because. 1. As a new editor it took me months to learn some of the things the user in question has done in just two days. Meaning maybe he was an editor who was banned before and has created a new account. Again he is still vandalising pages, the sock puppet allegations is not a hill am willing to die on, I would rather want admins to look into continuous Vandalism and destructive edits. Uricdivine (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

User has just received a(nother) final warning for blanking Religion in the Middle East as well as a 3RR warning. User did give a rationale for removing the text in their first edit summary,[234] so it's not obvious bad-faith removal. They do need to discuss it. —C.Fred (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours by Rosguill for edit warring. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia; user has a real bad case of battleground mentality and removes large amounts of content from Myanmar-related articles that they believe to be "Chinese propaganda".

Here they revert to an old revision of the article Chinese people in Myanmar, giving no explanation other than "jingoism". Then they go to the talk page, making copyright claims without evidence and accusing editors of the article in general of being paid by the Chinese government (see Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar).

Here they revert my edits and dismiss me a "wumao", an internet commentator who is paid by the Chinese government (ex 1, ex 2). This is actually the first time I came across this user.

This user is clearly not willing to communicate with users in good faith either, because they immediately removed my comment on their talk page insisting on considering others in good faith. If you check the comments made by them at Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar, it proves my point more; aggressively attacking other editors, labelling other editors, not providing policy-based reasons for their edits, and changing their explanations each time (but primarily sticking to the conspiracy that editors paid by the Chinese government are nefariously trying to paint Myanmar in a bad light on Wikipedia).

More examples of nonsense explanations ranging from "Han chauvinism" to "you just made it up": ex 1, ex 2, ex 3.

The oddest thing about all this is this user is not the first person to have (in my opinion) a battleground mentality and edits which are primarily removals of large amounts of content from Myanmar-related articles that they believe to be "Chinese propaganda". User:SSH remoteserver and User:Pak Thais are two other editors who have a very specific fixation on Chinese people and interests in Myanmar and accuse other editors of being paid by the Chinese government. SSH remoteserver and JordanKSM both made blank user pages shortly after creating their accounts, and all three have specific grievances regarding Aung San and Ne Win, two important figures in contemporary Burmese history. Most interesting however, is that Pak Thais' account was made shortly after SSH remoteserver was permanently blocked for disruptive editing, and JordanKSM's account was made shortly after Pak Thais' last edit.

So either three self-proclaimed "anti-Chinese propaganda" and "anti-Han chauvinist" editors popped up at different times with a specific interest in editing articles related to Chinese people in Myanmar and coverage of Aung San and Ne Win on Wikipedia, or it's the same person on multiple accounts. Either way, User:JordanKSM has clearly demonstrated that they are not here to collaboratively edit with others, but to push their personal POV by aggressively attacking other editors and paying lip service to Wikipedia policies. Yue🌙 20:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor is aggressively pushing POV using a source that does not exist. He repeats the same lines from a state-backed editor. He tries to restore a section that has been removed by many editors for not meeting the standards of Wikipedia. And then, he tries to lecture others using templates. His other edits should be investigated and banned from Wikipedia if possible. JordanKSM (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

This is not a place for sockpuppet investigation. I was a former editor who locked his account and retired. I edited from 2009 to 2017. JordanKSM (talk) 10:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The editor looks like trying to promote the CCP agenda on an industrial scale through a vast number of articles. Looking at his edits, he does full-time editing nonstop. I am a part-time editor who is unpaid. There's no way I can allocate enough time to compete with him. There are really VERY FEW Chinese people who speak fluent English, have an interest in Myanmar, and are able to allocate enough time to mass edit Burmese articles. If you check Chinese Wikipedia as a guide, there is virtually no editor who has an interest in Myanmar. In the past two years, I have seen an EXPLOSION of Chinese editors on English Wikipedia. Aung San's article was singlehandedly edited by a proven CCP editor who was outed and has since retired. Clearly, for Yue, someone does the research for him to accuse me of a sock. It's most likely teamwork consisting of hundreds of editors and researchers, with only one doing the edits. JordanKSM (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It gets more interesting as he shows up on articles of COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPICS which are only related by proven state-backed accounts. For example, Bamar nationalism, as the talk page argues, was created by an indef-blocked Chinese user with poor English skills, User:ZaDoraemonzu. Why would a Chinese user create such an article? It's well known in Myanmar that China likes to divide and rule. The article was mainly to sow discord between various ethnic groups and use the divisions to advance Chinese strategic interests such as BRI. The article was turned into redirect by User: SSH remoteserver presumably with support from another editor CentreLeftRight, "Your explanation for redirecting this article was valid" (talk page).

However, two months later, user Yue suddenly appeared out of nowhere and turned it back into a page. The "Burmese nationalism" was an orphan article before and a redirect by then. It's impossible that he could have known its existence in other ways. The only way he could have reached there was some back-channel collusion between CCP state-backed editors. For example, there is a dossier tracking how many articles they have created, how many were deleted or turned into redirects, and how many of them could be rescued. It seems to me there are thousands of similar accounts doing full-time propaganda on an industrial scale. Wikipedia needs a task force to find out and block state-backed accounts. Otherwise, the values we stand for are gone forever. JordanKSM (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

What we need is a dedicated task force of admins who are experienced in dealing with Chinese state-backed operations. Hopefully, Wikimedia Foundation would create one. A state-backed operation is highly intricate and too difficult even for admins to pinpoint and act. Only a dedicated task force could solve the problem. Suspected state-backed operations and accounts associated with them will be reported to and dealt with by the task force. That's how Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft, and others deal with the problem. If we don't, the project is useless and harmful to the vast majority outside of the West who don't have enough editors and admins and are subjected to relentless Chinese propaganda. JordanKSM (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I need not say more. You continue to avoid direct communication by removing other users' comments on your talk page, you continue to go on long conspiratory rants accusing other editors of being nefarious state agents after they try to engage with you in good faith, and you continue removing massive amounts of content you dislike and claiming it is all definitely added by the Chinese government and communist party with no evidence. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia and think you are on some crusade against the Chinese state by harassing and aggressively engaging with other editors, removing content on a whim, and treating talk pages like forum conspiracy threads. I would also like to add that I did not "[appear] out of nowhere"; like I mentioned on your talk page when I first engaged with you in good faith, I have been an active contributor to Wikipedia for nearly eight years and been with WikiProject Myanmar for nearly seven. I have never had such vitriol and libel directed at me, much less for accusations so ridiculous without any indication as to where they came from. I have made my case and you have furthered my points; I will allow administrators to review our comments and make a decision on the matter, if any. Yue🌙 22:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Typical. Lie outright, push to the extreme, and pretend innocent. You haven't replied to anything on either Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar or Talk:Aung San. I haven't added or removed anything. I am removing content that has been removed countless times by numerous non-Chinese editors: Alamak alamak, 71.202.21.101, 219.74.66.148 for not being encyclopediac and contradicting numerous WP policies. The content is extremely racist, devoted to how the Chinese are superior to "barbarians" with arbitary and cherry-picked facts from non-authoritative sources on Burma, often copied verbatim. Your attacks on Talk Page can be removed by any. Get familiar with WP policies first. Guess CCP didn't pay you enough? JordanKSM (talk) 09:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course, you won't reply how you reached Bamar nationalism or some other highly obscure articles edited by proven CCP accounts. You'll rest a few months, and once volunteer editors have moved on to other topics, you'll act and revert back contrary to the established consensus. You'll count on our volunteer nature and the fact that the encyclopedia is free for anyone to edit. We can obviously see the state-backed nature of edits, given the fact that Japanese, Southeast Asians, or Indians with 1.4 billion English speakers never end up doing anything remotely similar. The closest would be, once upon a time in 2014, a Thai user did something similar for articles related to Burmese-Siamese Wars but that's nothing out of the ordinary. JordanKSM (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

You continue to avoid direct communication by removing other users' comments on your talk page. Can you imagine the outright and brazen nature of the lies? He added warning templates on the talk page and say, "you avoid direct communication." It's now proven at this point. 09:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JordanKSM (talk • contribs)

You can accuse me of lying all you want, but unlike you I actually provide links to edits made by yourself to backup my claims (ex 1, ex 2). Can you actually respond to some of my accusations since you believe them to be false instead of just attacking me? Can you reasonably explain edits like this one to Chinese people in Myanmar where you remove 46,748 bytes of content with the explanation "revert jingonist edits"? Then you make the same edit but the reason now is "mass reversal of so many edits without concensus" when that is literally what you're doing by reverting to a version of the article from 2016. Then you made the revert again, now claiming it's for copyright violations without providing a comparison using a Wikitool or just linking the source of the copyright violation. I guess by the fourth and fifth times you just didn't see any reason in repeating one of your three aforementioned justifications for removing 46K+ bytes of content with no engagement on the matter aside from attacking another editor on Talk:Chinese people in Myanmar. And how about those two "first" edits of yours to Aung San (ex 1, ex 2) where you call me an editor paid by the Chinese state like you do in this thread for no reason other than to insult me? I do not need to lie because you continue to dig yourself into a deeper hole. It should be evident even without my comments that you're not here to work collaboratively and only seek to push your POV onto articles and attack those who oppose your edits. Yue🌙 07:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. The addition was not consensus-based. The problem is with the one who added it. Anyone who actually read that section would understand that it's not encyclopedic and relies on general sources written by non-specialists. Basically, the whole section is about how Chinese are great, how they are superior, how they dominate everything, how they just decimate the Burmese. Nobody would find that to be suitable for an encyclopedia. In addition, some paragraphs have 3000 words or 5000 words. It needs a major rewrite if it ever were suitable for a standalone section. The choice is yours. Want to add it? Make it encyclopedic and meet (WP standards). Don't wanna do the work? Then, don't force such an ugly section on an otherwise good article. Also, you repeat lies after lies that Ne Win was Chinese (he wasn't). Claiming every major Burmese historical figure as "Chinese", you probably aren't here to build an encyclopedia. You are here to spout racist, "How we are superior to everyone" in articles. JordanKSM (talk)

178.138.34.147 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) diff Victor Schmidt (talk) 08:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Add WP:BLP and WP:NPA to the mix, diff, edit summary here, likely the same user based on behavior. Victor Schmidt (talk) 09:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

178.138.34.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) left a clear legal threat on my talk page here Also has been adding unsourced content to George Sand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Adakiko (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a silly and boastful legal threat by a loudmouth, but it's time for bye-byes here anyway.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The anon had changed IPs edited George Sand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as 178.138.99.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adakiko (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected George Sand for a week, but I've also blocked the range for the same time, as they have been vandalising elsewhere and everything from that range recently has been vandalism. Black Kite (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bujar Osmani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Could I get some admin attention please at Bujar Osmani? I've been reverting IP vandalism there for 3 hours, as there's a bit of a backlog over at RPP. Thanks. Storchy (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done: I've put down 4 days of semi-protection. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, before you say anything, I am well aware that this is likely a case for SPI, but since this seems to be a user/IP related suspicion of this size, I’m trying to figure out the best way to put this, and your input would be greatly appreciated. So I have come across a page, and the interesting part about this is that the page was created and content was added to it, but after CubanoBoi (the page creator) finished this, he wrote “Anyone randomly getting onto this page can edit it and do what you want. I want CHAOS.” [235], essentially advertising people to vandalize the page. Within minutes of this edit posting, Bilikon (who hadn’t edited anything since March 2022), shows up and begins adding flags of random countries to the page. Following this is random additions from a wide range of IPs geolocating from different parts of the world, mainly European countries such as Germany, Croatia, Greece, and others. I also have found that multiple users, such as SlipyCVBN, Ckiddestroyer239, Yhowuwu, JackDarlo, Tjstp2021, and Massi2335, created their accounts and then proceeded (typically within 20 minutes of joining) to contribute to this one user sandbox, and as of this point, their only edits are to this one sandbox article (some of them even did it a minute after they joined). Now, I did CSD the page as being used for only vandalism (G3), however, a few minutes later, that got removed by one of the IP addresses (who geolocates to Spain and has only edited this article, as is common with most of the other IPs contributing there), and that’s when I started looking back through the article history. What struck me the most from that is the fact that a lot of the accounts and IPs contributing to this article have only contributed to this one article (a user sandbox page no less), and the fact that some of these accounts are going straight to this page minutes after joining, and if someone tries to remove a large portion of the article or tries to stop people from editing it, CubanoBoi reverts what they did and then harasses them (this has happened at least once that I’ve noticed in the article history, such as here. [236])

Now, I didn’t report this to SPI because of the number of accounts editing the page, and the fact that the IPs are literally all over the world, so establishing a clear-enough connection to warrant an SPI would be tricky to do. This leads me to believe that this may be something that was coordinated somehow, most likely outside of Wikipedia. It seems very unlikely that people would go out of their way to randomly put things on a user sandbox page and go straight to and edit only that page, as compared to a page in mainspace. That is why I brought this information here, rather than trying to make an SPI about it. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd classify that as a forum invasion. Which forum, I have no idea. It will probably want some protection, in whatever deletion state it's left in. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And an update, TheTuranistBrabander did the same pattern of creating his account and then editing this article, asking why the page was blanked, which would indicate that he has previous experience with this article. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And now Tjstp2021 created his userpage and said “Welcome feel free to mess around in this,” which is basically the same thing that was suggested at that user sandbox, as mentioned before. This was likely done in response to the user sandbox getting blanked. ProClasher97 ~ Have A Question? 18:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about individual users, though I have blocked one vandal, as most are going to be visitors from another website (and in fact many do not appear to be malicious). In terms of expediting a solution, I've asked what's supposed to be going on. It may (or may not) be more efficient than whac-a-mole. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:55, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Make that 2 vandals. It's TikTok, apparently, of course. I don't know, maybe it's calming down. Maybe User:CubanoBoi wants to take a moment to reconsider the wisdom of their strategy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

And CubanoBoi states that the worst abuse happened while he was dining at an Amish restaurant lacking internet service. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

• From what I can gather, here's what happened:
  • CubanoBoi, who has a history of good faith editing, wants to make a "just for fun" page that was a spoof on the Ukraine war article and thinks it would be okay to do that in his sandbox since it's back-of-house.
  • CubanoBoi makes a public invitation on social media for folks to join the fun and maybe make some memes/lore/whatever. More people than expected show up and, predictably, one of them makes some racist edits to the sandbox page.
  • CubanoBoi calls the racist a Very Bad Word and, predictably, Wikipedians zero in on this as a harassment issue.
  • After someone blanks the page and people keep editing, CubanoBoi leaves a message saying admins don't want folks to do this anymore ("this" being treating the sandbox as a playground). This seems to work.
  • Taking CubanoBoi's explanation at face value, it seems that the situation has resolved itself and CubanoBoi has learned his lesson. I don't think this needs anything more than a gentle reminder that Wikipedia sandboxes are not to be used for recreation. –dlthewave ☎ 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

dlthewave Wrong, I called somebody who deleted half of the infobox those words, not the person who was being rascist. I was in the Amish place at that time, and before I could even see that edit it was cleared. –

CubanoBoi

• Ah yes, the old "I was in an Amish restaurant" excuse. We're hearing it more and more. Maybe we could get a WMF grant to explore the possibility of installing WiFi in Amish restaurants. Looks like there's an untapped market there. EEng 04:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I mean, we can't expect everyone will remember to bring their Ethernet cable to dinner. Levivich (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• 24.191.115.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

24.191.115.221, User blocked previously on July 6th for 2 weeks. Immediately after returning, July 20th, user made a unsourced/vandalism edit to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim with factually incorrect info, which was accompanied with false (yet plausible) citations (One citation was Twitter, which is another can of worms in its own right). The citations were for the announcement of 3 unrelated shows on Adult Swim but the citations were plausible without further digging. User has a fairly extensive history of prior vandalism, primarily to television pages, and has made similar high effort vandalism attempts in the past. This edit is in line with the prior MO this user was banned for originally. Etriusus (Talk) 00:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Additional unconstructive/deliberately false edit(s) since final warning was given:

• Minnie Mouse here
• Pandalian here, and here
• Galaga: Destination Earth here

Important correction: User was blocked for 'Block Evasion'. User was still warned multiple times about vandalizing pages for disruptive editing and vandalism. Etriusus (Talk) 00:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Clearly, it seems that ip needs to be blocked again but this time for longer. Chip3004 (talk) 01:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• The user was previously blocked for long-term abuse but this is not one I'm familiar with. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Malcolmxl5: I originally became aware of this user when reviewing the Pending Changes Log and his edit had waited for a few hours without review. The edit in question here involved the IP user adding Pandalian to List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim. The addition was accompanied by two refs which, upon further inspection, did not support the addition. In fact one of those refs was twitter of all places. I took an interest when I saw the had been previously banned and this user seems to have a history of making plausible yet factually incorrect edits (i.e. here) in what I suspect is a subtler attempt at vandalism.

  After sending them a 4im warning on the talk page, the user made a handful of similarly plausible but factually incorrect claims. Claiming Pandalian again was on Adult Swim here, without citation, just to name one. The exhaustive list is already posted above. Looking at their contribution history, there are a large number of examples, none of which fill me with any hope this user is willing to turn a new leaf. This is me very much nipping the issue in the bud. I'll ping @Daniel Case: since he was involved with the original ban. Etriusus (Talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked this user again, for three months. I used "block evasion" since the filters have identified the edits with a long-term abuser, but I can't remember which one. Anyhow, it doesn't matter for the time being. Daniel Case (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Diff - removes and rephrases "Azerbaijani language" with following comment: "go out of there"
• Diff - edit wars. Adding information about Afshars and asking other editor to "Bro pls stop and leave the english wikipedia"
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars with following comment "Vandalism by Azeri nationalist"
• Diff - again edit wars and again trying to insert information about Afshars with following comment "Vandalism of Azeri nationalist"

I wont list all of his edits, but all of them are similar. Looks like this user is WP:NOTHERE, and I am not sure, but I believe that it is sock of this user who was doing similar edits, showed identical behavior and was banned.

--Abrvagl (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure if this edit with following comment "It doesnt and brainwashed azeris like you should go out of this platform and nadir shah was afshar persian you idiot!" was done by the same user or not, but it is obvious that page is targeted by someone. Can we have some protection againt vandalism applied to Panah Ali Khan page? Thanks! Abrvagl (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Sock indeffed - it'd be nice if someone could request a global lock.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've just semi-protected the article for 3 months.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism: diff. VilerIT (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

based on Diff you provided, It definitley Looks like vandalism Chip3004 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, VilerIT! We don’t usually do anything about one single incident of vandalism except revert it (which you did — thanks!) and drop the editor in question a warning template like {{uw-vand1}}. The vast majority of vandals never vandalise, or edit, again, so we don’t waste time and energy on them. — TREY MATURIN has spoken 20:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I tried to act quickly and possibly prevent further vandalism by reporting the vandal to the administrators, so I did not have time to read the rules about this whole process of reporting incidents. I also apparently reported a case of vandalism to a wrong noticeboard :) Thank you for letting me know. VilerIT (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Michawn2003 was working on the page Comparison of MUTCD-influenced traffic signs, and then, IP 173.216.5.44, and Michawn2003 began an edit war on that page. After that, Michawn2003 left a dicussion here on the article's talk page, then User:Rschen7754 protected the page for 48 hours so I've decided to leave a message on the IP's talk. I requested the user to block the IP here at: User talk:Rschen7754#IP 173.216.5.44. 2600:1700:6180:6290:60CB:CA76:257F:41DC (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• 2601:981:4401:1CC0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 98.235.155.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm honestly not sure what's going on here exactly, but the behavior coming from the IP and range seems weird... they're often manual reverting their own edits, which in turn is leading to some sort of self-edit warring? Either that, or it's two different people, but I don't think that's the case given how similar the edit summary styles are. Similarly, the edit summary style (with each word having a capital letter) seems similar to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John Cena Fan 2002 to me, but not idea if it's actually the case. Either way, would love this IP/range to be looked into a bit. Thanks. (FYI- I found thing ongoing due to their recent edits on Blue's Clues- also take a look at Talk:Blue's Clues#Edit Conflict 22/07/2022, as I'm not the only one confused by the behavior going on here.) Magitroopa (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Also noting that both IPs have received blocks in the past- seemingly for the same (strange) behavior still going on. Magitroopa (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's a method of trying to hide vandalism. See the history of Blue's Clues as an example. The user is edit warring with themselves, after making an edit to vandalise the article. So here a small bit of text is removed, and then another edit and the second edit is undone. The article history bills up with junk, and anyone not paying close attention may miss the original vandalism. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

199.188.85.46 (talk)

I don't know enough about drummers and drums to be able to assess this IP's unexplained edits, but they all look like vandalism. I think they should all be reverted and the IP blocked as a VOA. (Came to my attention when he vandalized an opera singer's article, for a bit of variety I suppose.) Thanks to anyone who can help. Softlavender (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Ritchie333 you know about this stuff, right? Softlavender (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Softlavender The edits look superficially plausible, but are all unsourced. Revert per WP:V and block if necessary. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Ritchie333. I reverted all that could be rolled back. The IP is still vandalizing today, after a final warning from me last night. Could you please block him as a VOA?

I'd also like to alert Binksternet, who has been removing the uncited equipment fancruft on these types of articles. Softlavender (talk) 00:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Generally, the details of a drummer's drum kit and related gear are not encyclopedia material. Sometimes, the full drum kit has been analyzed by a WP:SECONDARY source such as a drummer's magazine, which is the ideal situation, but even then the full list of gear is a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's enough to say that the drummer uses a drum kit made by Ludwig with cymbals by Zildjian, heads by Remo, drum sticks by ProMark, or whatever. If there is some special additional gear (drum triggers, drum machine) they can be mentioned briefly. Primary sources are good enough to establish that the drummer represents a particular drum manufacturer, and has a signature line of equipment named after them. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

New account Roccitysubway, created July 20, 2022, is removing massive amounts well-sourced article content from articles about malls, on the premise that the removed content was 'gossipy' and the new version is more 'polished'. They also deleted a relevant uw-delete2 warning from their talk page. Affected pages:

 Newburgh Mall
 Via Port Rotterdam
 St. Lawrence Centre
 The Shoppes at Buckland Hills
 The Mall at Rockingham Park
 Green Acres Mall
 Hudson Valley Mall
 Fingerlakes Mall
 Champlain Centre
 Eastview Mall
 Wilton Mall
 Poughkeepsie Galleria
 The Mall at Greece Ridge
 Oakdale Mall
 Sangertown Square
 Destiny USA
 User talk: Roccitysubway

Diffs: (Not sure if I linked these correctly)

 [237]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newburgh_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099621350
 [238]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Via_Port_Rotterdam&diff=prev&oldid=1099620968
 [239]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Lawrence_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099622812
 [240]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=St._Lawrence_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099622252
 [241]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Shoppes_at_Buckland_Hills&diff=prev&oldid=1099620789
 [242]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Rockingham_Park&diff=prev&oldid=1099606227
 [243]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Green_Acres_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099601435
 [244]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hudson_Valley_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099600632
 [245]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerlakes_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099597697
 [246]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fingerlakes_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099597610
 [247]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Champlain_Centre&diff=prev&oldid=1099597443
 [248]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastview_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099592741
 [249]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wilton_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099590938
 [250]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Poughkeepsie_Galleria&diff=prev&oldid=1099588517
 [251]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Mall_at_Greece_Ridge&diff=prev&oldid=1099588346
 [252]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oakdale_Mall&diff=prev&oldid=1099587375
 [253]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sangertown_Square&diff=prev&oldid=1099586401
 [254]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?  title=Destiny_USA&diff=prev&oldid=1099415244
 [255]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roccitysubway&diff=1099661907&oldid=1099634603
 

Note: may not have caught all of the disruptive edits; there are a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Roccitysubway&offset=&limit=500&target=Roccitysubway for futher reference. You can also see them commonly changes that bring back the removed content.

Almost all of the removed content was well-sourced, generally well-written, and generally does not warrant removal with the explanation given. Teb (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

TheEmeraldBoat, while not sure this rises to ANI as it is a content dispute, albeit across a dozen articles. However, I do think this is a matter for WP:SPI as the editing is suspicious. I'll prepare a report shortly since this isn't the place for that. Also, for future reference, no issue with editors removing warnings from their talk page Slywriter (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for filing the SPI. Blocked, tagged, massrollbacked. (Might be a few edits hiding there that the massrb didn't pick up, which y'all are welcome to find if you want, but the point of a massrb in a case like this [large number of marginal edits] is more to deter recidivism than anything else.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

No problem, easy one. Slywriter (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, Tazmin and Slywriter. Teb (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

IPs geolocating to Dubai have been vandalizing a few articles. Articles common to more than one IP:

• Alvin and the Chipmunks in film (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of The Muppets productions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• List of Rolie Polie Olie episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• David Seville (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

IPs and articles if only vandalized by that anon:

• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:8d1c:bb0f:7119:ca41 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Boonie Bears: Back to Earth
  • List of Horrid Henry episodes
• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:5df2:39a2:143a:67a9 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:d67:bc9a:6ac3:57b5 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Ross Bagdasarian Jr.
• 2001:8F8:1737:69FB:7133:EE81:12AF:8FB (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:c9b4:fce0:a1d4:7354 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1735:ff21:2015:2116:86a6:b5d2 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • Jason Lee (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:2d85:11bd:3693:2333 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 2001:8f8:1737:69fb:c0c2:542f:ca26:d62b (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Should I leave a ANI notice on all these IP talk pages? Given the rather rapid rate of IP changes, it seems unlikely the message would seen; and a waste of server space. Adakiko (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I have protected the first four articles based on the level of long term disruption. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The range looks to be 2001:8f8:1734::/46 (User contributions for 2001:8F8:1734:0:0:0:0:0/46 - Wikipedia). I am not super familiar with range sizes but this looks to be pretty large to me. That said, as I am going through the contrib log it's clear that a very large percentage of edits have been reverted. Question for more experienced admins; is this range too large to block? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping Oshwah... thoughts? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The IPs listed are two /64 subnets: 2001:8f8:1735:ff21::/64 and 2001:8f8:1737:69fb::/64. It may be worth blocking the first but not the second. The user may move on to another /64 subnet but we can reassess the situation if that happens. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, both /64s are clearly the same person and they've moved from the 69FB block to the FF21 one. So I've  Done blocked that /64 for a week. Black Kite (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Good call here - that's how I would've proceeded. Ad Orientem - Thank you for the ping; please do so at any time and I will be happy to assist. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

[256] user making threats with a history of unproductive editing. Andrevan@ 23:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I filed a report at UAA as misleading and implies shared use, but the report was denied. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@FlightTime: To be clear, since I've seen this come up with you a few times at UAA, including today, "Seems like a company name" or even "Is a company name" are not on their own reasons to block. There's a whole lot of companies called "Flight Time", but you're not getting blocked over it. I don't see any companies called, verbatim, "Southern California Exploration", although I see two containing that as a substring. Anyways, mostly tangential, but I thought I'd address that. I see I gave this user AMPOL and abortion DS alerts back in May... Gonna take a look now. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Tamzin: I wasn't necessarily expecting a block, CHU would of been fine, Flight Time Enterprises, FlightTime corp are a little different. Why don't we just chalk it up to perception. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, perception, yes, but your perception appears to be at odds with policy. If you think someone should change their username, but their username is not a clear WP:UPOL violation (e.g. a corporate-sounding username with no promotion of such a company), the correct venue is discussing with the user, and then WP:RFC/N if that fails, not UAA or AN/I. Please don't report usernames to UAA just for being corporate-sounding. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Have reviewed... Adding unreliably-sourced negative information to a BLP in a DS area one is aware of, and then doubling down by threatening battleground editing and administrative action based on a legally absurd WP:FREESPEECH argument is... not good. SCE, is this the kind of behavior we can expect from you as an editor going further? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
• There's no doubt that the link offered by Andrevan raises concerns about this users conduct. With that said, I did take a very brief look at this users contribution history, and I didn't see any obvious signs of chronic misbehavior. I think it should also be noted that they are a new editor, and we should becareful to not bite a new comer. I would not be supportive of a ban or block at this time. Instead, a warning about WP:CIVIL and WP:BATTLEGROUND should be a good first step for their behavior. Additionally, they should be directed to review editing guidelines and policies, notably WP:BLP, WP:RS, and WP:RSP to know what mainstream sources are usable or not. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe we should let this editor speak for themselves first. Andrevan@ 01:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Biting newcomers for using NYPost when the statements presented by NYPost are factual is the problem. Community deciding one of the most read newspapers is evil because of "things" will inevitably lead to friction when good-faith right leaning editors try and edit using a newspaper they read every day. So, while their response is out of line and extreme, I understand their position that it looks like Wikipedia is "protecting" AOC and censoring them. Slywriter (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Whoa there. The user was making threats. The NY Post is not a reliable source. Andrevan@ 01:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Neither Andrevan's revert nor his talkpage post reads like "biting newcomers" to me. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Andrevan was calm, so bite was inappropriate to characterize his comments. Just pointing out that when a new editor gets reverted because NYPost isn't a reliable source while its a newspaper they read every day can cause a reaction especially in AP, especially when right-wing editors already feel wikipedia is biased as they do not understand why NYPost is considered an unreliable source. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Slywriter, I think this is fair as far as it goes, and if the gravamen of the user's complaint had been, "I don't understand why I can't cite the New York Post," then I think you would have a compelling argument. But throw in the inapposite appeal to the First Amendment, a rather grandiose understanding of the Post's place in society, and strangely escalatory threats, and it raises red flags for me. Reasonable minds may differ, of course. Cheers, all, and Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  User's response to my warning them was to get on the talk page and yell a WP:LEGALTHREAT. Andrevan@ 02:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Where did the user commit a WP:LEGALTHREAT? Can you provide a diff? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  The same diff I linked, maybe it's not an explicit legal threat, but they invoked their rights and WP:FREESPEECH and threatened to report me. It's legal-threat-adjacent. Andrevan@ 02:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agree as I see 1st Amendment grandstanding followed by a threat to go to the Admins. Chilling would be more accurate than legal threat. Neither good. And it was predicated on a false belief that NYPost was deemed unreliable by you alone. I don't have a great answer on how to handle because they are totally wrong, but chasing them away every time they dip into AP isn't the answer either. Maybe AP needs the 30/500 of P/I to prevent bad experiences early on or we need not quite ANI for newcomers. Slywriter (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  As a side note, the NY Post is widely considered unreliable for good reason, your personal viewpoint or this editor's nonwithstanding. And even if that were not the case, this is not the place to litigate that. Andrevan@ 02:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Just pointing out how quickly things can go off the rails when edits are reverted as unreliable in a contentious area of the project on a lightening rod article. IMDB, YouTube and other less debated ones have same fighting, its just usually relegated to the AfC help desk and other less traveled corners of the project. AP adds a whole other dimension as multiple editors on both sides have strong opinions and the more experienced can use policy-based reasons that are opaque to a rookie and look like a brick wall being thrown up. Anyway, enough said. Ball is really in SCE's court to digest this and either agree to the WP:CIVILITY standards or find the rest of the world wide web which has far looser standards of discussion. Slywriter (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO the only things standing in the way of a routine WP:NOTHERE block is the lack of a history of such aggression. There was a small brouhaha in May over some anti-abortion editing, but nothing actionable. So, let's await a response here. Zaathras (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

On this page, the user seems to be abusing talk page access. They have been reverting whoever reverts their edits. They have already been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account. Talk page access may need to be revoked. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The talk page is also full of "YOU CANNOT ESCAPE RON MERKLE" until someone reverted it. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 04:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

In a few hours, they made 73 edits. (At least it was 73 the last time I checked XTools.) That's a lot. This may be one of the most active vandalism only accounts I have ever seen. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I try to give them sone advice about their block appeal, and this is the thanks I get. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Once the user's talkpage access is blocked. Be on the look out, as he'll likely immediately create socks. GoodDay (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Dumb idea: Maybe we should even create a edit filter to warn users about these type of edits? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Tbh I think you should not have edit warred but waited for an administrator to revoke his TPA. Patachonica (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

He was editing my comment to imply I was saying some pretty vile things. I am absolutely reverting that, every single time. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - That didn't take long, he's back as AngelaMerkelFan (talk · contribs) - Aoidh (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Oh my gosh... do we need an SPI once more of these possible socks appear? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  ...although their editing patterns seem to be different. One replaces content with the name, one adds the name. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 05:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  That doesn't matter. Their names are similar and their edits are similar, so probably a CU should be run. Patachonica (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, the pages he edits should be semi-protected. Patachonica (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  I asked him and he responds with this message:

  "Never heard of him" I'm definitely not buying it. Patachonica (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Is there no admin to block this guy? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe it's gonna be the admin that blocked his original account. Patachonica (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Didn't take long. The socking has begun. Time for a range block. GoodDay (talk) 05:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a LTA editor. He's fully aware of his actions & is just giving Wikipedia the middle-finger. Communicating with him, will only give him more attention, which is what he wants. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

When did he start editing? If it was years ago then that would be considered LTA right? Patachonica (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. GoodDay (talk) 05:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jauerback: Can you please block AngelaMerkelFan? Patachonica (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh nevermind, GirthSummit blocked him. Patachonica (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I've blocked, sans TPA/E-mail. They're socks of the Ron Merkle LTA, I can't remember what the SPI case is called now but will find it ans tag when I'm in front of my laptop. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks to be Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Atac2/Archive (there's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Molotov Cock/Archive which I guess didn't get rolled into the main SPI). - Aoidh (talk) 06:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be different SPI cases of the same users. Patachonica (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for digging them out Aiodh. Atac2 is the right case - I see that Zzuuzz blocked a bunch of their socks last week. I don't see any other accounts on the IPs they're using. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Please can someone block 203.163.238.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's part of a WP:LTA with hidden text edits such as this. Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• 72 hours. Please let me know if they come back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Would an administrator or two please help with the backlog on wp:AIV? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pindrice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I placed a warning on Pindrice's talk page regarding uncivil statements against S.A. Julio in edit summaries at 2022 CONCACAF W Championship and 2022 Women's Africa Cup of Nations. I reverted Pindrice's edits in the two articles to maintain formatting consistency with other high-level football tournaments listing own goals with the edit summary for consistency with other articles. Also, be mindful of what you say in your edit summaries. See your talk page. I then observed identical edit summaries at 2022 Copa América Femenina and 2022 AFC Women's Asian Cup and was about to amend my warning when I discovered that Pindrice had blanked their talk page. I proceeded to revert the edits at the third and fourth articles and considered the matter settled as Pindrice was obviously aware of the warning I had placed.

I have since discovered that Pindrice has continued their uncivil language in edit summaries toward not only S.A. Julio but also myself at 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship, 2022 EAFF E-1 Football Championship (women), and 2022 AFF Women's Championship, so the matter is not settled. I take Pindrice's blanking of their talk page as an indication they do not wish to engage directly, so I am bringing this here in the hopes that Pindrice learns to be more civil in their edit summaries and to exhibit less ownership of article content and formatting. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• Pindrice notified / S.A. Julio notified — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

This also seems to apply to the following IP : User:2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7. Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

What is uncivi in my comments for the edits ? There is nothing uncivil ! This is so subjective. You only want me to be quite and to disappear because you want nobody to argue with you. If I'm ban, shame on you, really ! Pindrice (talk) 02:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In my edits I said this was your ideas to do this kind of edits, not mine. I'm in my right to not agree with you ! Pindrice (talk) 02:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Pindrice one of your favorite edit summaries recently is JUST BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BE THE ONE WHO IS RIGHT, YOU'RE RIDICULOUS. All in bold is considered shouting. Why are you shouting? Please explain to all of us here at this noticeboard how this edit summary does not violate the clear-cut policy, Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Do you think that you are exempt from this policy? Cullen328 (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pindrice: I'm not saying you have to agree with me, but to argue about formatting and content in edit summaries is highly inappropriate, and pointed statements like the ones you made border on personal attacks. Article talk pages and user talk pages exist for those types of discussions. The fact you continually blank your talk page is, in my opinion, evidence that you are aware of that fact and choose to ignore it. I also wonder whether this edit to your talk page was you editing while logged out or if there is an IP vandal involved. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Claiming that your posts were civil when a cursory glance at your contribs would very clearly prove otherwise is not a good look. Also, while you are permitted to remove talk page notices, the fact that you do so without any acknowledgement of any WP:NPA breach at all is not acceptable. Communication is required on this project. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Looking at their edit history they almost never actually use the edit summaries to let others know what they changed. Gusfriend (talk) 10:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• This is bordering on WP:CIR. While not the most extreme case, the fact remains, you have to be able to collaborate with other and cope with disagreements without instantly shouting and getting aggressive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The overlap in areas of editing between Pindrice and 2a01:cb14:cee:c600:a434:28d2:bd18:29b7 is too great for me to ignore. It may be a case of Pindrice not checking "Keep me logged in" on the login page, but the regular switching between logged-in and logged-out editing seems almost WP:DUCKish. I've added userlinks for the IP at the top of this section as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I support a ban here. Clearly this account/IP are not here to build an encyclopedia. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Aqşin Abbaslı (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Aqşin Abbaslı has multiple times tried to remove (censor) the word "Azeri" (a well established word in English academia, often being used by WP:RS, but abhorred by the regime of Azerbaijan) with no explanation whatsoever. In fact, I don't think I have ever seen him use the edit summary thing, let alone a talk page. Saying that their talk page is filled with warnings would be putting it mild. They have warnings stretching all the way back to November 2019... the same month they started editing. Mind you, they have been reverted for ALL these diffs and warned for it, yet still continue.

1. 22 November 2019
2. 26 November 2019
3. 29 January 2020
4. 4 March 2020
5. 5 March 2020
6. 29 April 2020
7. 28 August 2021
8. 8 November 2021
9. 24 November 2021
10. 31 December 2021
11. 31 December 2021
12. 31 December 2021
13. 15 February 2022
14. 20 July 2022

And mind you, this is just disruption in one field. They have made other sort of disruptions as well, just a few examples;

1. 28 December 2021 Removed the Armenian romanization of the city name
2. 22 October 2021 Replaced "Iranian" with "Iranian Azerbaijani" under "nationality"
3. 2 June 2021 Removed the Armenian tranlisteration

--HistoryofIran (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Another mobile user. The only thing this editor has ever done on a talk page is remove someone else's thirteen-year-old comment. Probably got there by mistake and didn't even know what they were seeing. 100% nonuse of edit summaries, probably hasn't discovered them yet. This is so incredibly frustrating. The encyclopedia anyone can edit turns into the mobile app no one can use to communicate. valereee (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

That's an incredible amount of WP:AGF with all due respect (I know you mean well), but it unfortunately doesn't address any part of the actual conduct (i.e. context) which is marked by WP:TENDENTIOUS when one take's a close look at the diffs above. I checked Aqşin Abbaslı's talk page, which is littered with warnings left by various veteran editors. They have never responded to any of these warnings. To be honest, I doubt this is due to them being a mobile user. They have demonstrated that despite editing for quite some time, they are unable to produce any sort of editorial pattern that would be a net worth to this project. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon, oh, sorry, I wasn't trying to argue we should leave them to their misguided editing simply because they can't/haven't/are refusing to hear us. Just expressing frustration that we can't be sure we're communicating with them. I was thinking maybe wait to act until they'd started editing again, which they haven't. If they do start editing again without coming in here, I think at minimum a p-block from article space with an edit summary pointing them here. valereee (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

They started editing again [257]. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

P-block from article space to see if it's possible to get this editor's attention here. valereee (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

90tillinfinitydue, registered on 30 March 2022, is WP:NOTHERE. His main purpose appears to be to whitewash crimes committed by Pakistanis. This has been seen on articles such as British Pakistanis, Rape in Pakistan.

He was blocked in March 2022 for "edit-warring (4 reverts), accusing others of sockpuppetry",[258] and he is still doing the same thing.

He is making personal attacks while being beyond sensitive when someone comments on his edits. An example of this disruption is right here where he removed my comment because "Remove personal attack by hounding account most likely a sleeper account". I made no personal attack and I am no sleeper account. Here he calls reliably sourced content a "vandalism", and here he says he is "not entertaining random accounts".

All of this confirms that he is being totally uncollaborative and WP:NOTHERE. Editorkamran (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Admins this user above which randomly appeared and his hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor I have cleaned up the misleading information on both articles the article in question has a host of problems based on inaccurate statistics and sources not related to the topic. This user has refused to engage and has been reverting and edit warring himself so this allegation placed on me is false. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

"hounding all my edits in collaboration with another editor" is another baseless bad faith claim by you. "This user has refused to engage"? You are clearly talking about yourself since you are the one who removed my talk page message by making personal attack. Editorkamran (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

1)You did not discuss anything on the British Pakistani article which has a long talk page discussion and just belligerently edited without consensus 2) I have fully explained my edits on Rape in Pakistan the stats were deliberately skewed and over exaggerated I added more recent stats you didn't bother to read or analyse anything 3) A 4 year old account with barely 200 edits randomly finding themselves in a dispute seems like your only here to cause disruption and disputes. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am in a far better standing than you who got 1 block for disruptive editing, 100 edits and was registered just some months ago. Consensus was against you on British Pakistani and I contributed to the discussion which ensured that the consensus is clearly against you.[259] You are not adding anything constructive but only removing the content that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Indeed you are "only here to cause disruption" as your history shows. Editorkamran (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Bad faith assumption and WP:NOTHERE attitude from 90tillinfinitydue is continuing even after this report. He is now accusing another editor to have "come with a particular agenda",[260] and while censoring content on Rape in Pakistan he is attacking another editor by speculating nationality with edit summary that "its time now for my Indian friends to focus on Rape in India".[261] Editorkamran (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's important to censor such content. Patachonica (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I have tried my best to engage this disruptive editor and all my edits have clear logical basis I have removed redundant and misleading edits and replaced with up to date figures. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I am Indian myself so im not sure why this editor is picking and choosing my statements....I have engaged on talk pages while they have done nothing but edit war with the the aid of another editor. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I've taken a quick look at the complaints raised by the filer, and it's not exactly looking good - deleting article talk page comments, removing reliably sourced data (allegedly because it was "skewed" - based on what sources?), and personal attacks on other editors. MiasmaEternal☎ 11:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Blocked. The reason 90tillinfinitydue provides for this removal is just nonsense. The post removed wasn't a personal attack; 90tillinfinitydue's edit summary, on the other hand, is. 90tillinfinitydue's editing of Rape in Pakistan is seriously disruptive, removing various sourced content as "vandalism", apparently for the purpose of nationalist whitewashing. For the removal of doubt, in this edit summary, they out themselves as a nationalist warrior. Blocked indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Bishonen | tålk 11:40, 23 July 2022 (UTC).

While the block of 90tillinfinitydue seems entirely appropriate, I'd have to suggest that neither side in the dispute over content on the British Pakistani article was behaving appropriately, and that the block shouldn't be taken as evidence that the disputed content has any consensus - from a quick look at it, there are obvious issues which need to be resolved, through proper discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have put a CU block in place over and above Bishonen's block - CU confirms that 90tillinfinitydue has been abusing multiple accounts, and for several reasons I am fairly confident that they are a sock of Nangparbat. I echo AndyTheGrump's comment however - the fact that an LTA has been involved in the dispute should not be taken as an indication that the article is fine as it stands. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Aloisnebegn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

1. Tried to remove 10k of WP:RS sourced content on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "extremely biased and full of unreliable sources"[262]
2. Idem on the Pan-Turkism article. Edit summary: "Extremely biased and presents debated scientific arguments as facts."[263]
3. Tried to remove content from the lede that is very well sourced and explained in the body of the article, and also passes WP:LEDE. Edit summary: "no source"[264]
4. Tried to tagbomb the Pan-Turkism article. No edit summary/explanation, nor any talk page section created by Aloisnebegn.[265]
5. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 2).[266]
6. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 3)[267]
7. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 4). Edit summary: "If you disagree with the explanation in talk page, please open a section there. Instead of getting into an edit war and using vague phrases like 'you are creating noise'.)"[268]
8. Tried to add the tags again (attempt number 5). No edit summary/explanation[269]
9. Tries to question the legitimacy of the Armenian genocide. Comment: "In whole article I almost only see Taner Akçam and other Armenian historians' citations, while there are differing views about this genocide."[270]
10. Tried to have the Sèvres Syndrome article deleted, a well sourced article explaining one of the many paramount conspiracy theories in Turkey.[271]
11. Tried to tagbomb the Sèvres Syndrome article after realizing they are unable to delete it from Wikipedia.[272]
12. Tried to remove WP:RS content from the Greeks article.[273]
13. Tried to insert tags in the Armenian genocide article at all cost in order to undermine content that in their view could somehow defame Turkey (attempt number 1[274], attempt number 2[275], attempt number 3)[276]
14. Warned on many occassions on their talk page.

Looking at the compelling evidence, its safe to say that user:Aloisnebegn is not here to build this encyclopaedia, and are solely here on a single purpose mission in order to remove anything that doesn't suit their irredentist pro-Turkish POV. Pinging involved editors Buidhe, ZaniGiovanni and Ohnoitsjamie. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I noticed Aloisnebegn editing a couple of pages I have watchlisted; The continued content removal and edit-wars in Sèvres Syndrome, later launching an AfD with subpar reasoning [277] that is unanimously voted to Keep, same edit-wars in Pan-Turkism with subpar edit-summaries and no explanation on talk even after being repeatedly asked to gain consensus and warned on talk by various editors, and the last straw was edit-warring (again) and putting cn tags in Armenian genocide lead when they were repeatedly told that sources were in the article body, all of this is just extremely bad faith and I agree that this user is WP:NOTHERE. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

My only comments are that Aloisnebegan made at least 3 reverts on the 1rr article Armenian genocide continuing after being warned. Additionally, Taner Akcam is not Armenian and it could be considered a BLP violation to call him that in order to discredit his scholarship . (t · c) buidhe 01:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would support some sort of block for this behavior. I think it should be finite at this point; see if that straightens up their behavior. Maybe like a week or so and explain what they'v done wrong with some advice. Any disruption after that, I think and indef would be appropriate. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - The user is very new to the Wikipedia. He has like 100 edits. Sort of block(or TBAN?) would be appropriate here, that way they will get a chance to learn basics of the Wikipedia and good faith editing. If they show similar behavior after that - ifdef would be appropriate. Abrvagl (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Another concerning item is this comment on their user talk: I do not take your accusations seriously. I did not do anything with nationalist motivations. Instead tried to fix the articles written with nationalist motivations. I had started to suggest having an experienced editor discuss their edits with them more, but that first sentence makes me wonder if they would discount the advice. It might be a good idea to have a administrator they have not interacted with yet tell them that their behaviour has them on the road to either a block or a topic ban. Further, in my experience, when a new editor says they do not have nationalist motivations but are here to address the nationalist motivations of others, it's really the new editor with the nationalist motivations. I think the edit history here backs that assessment up. —C.Fred (talk) 13:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: They're still edit-warring at the Sèvres Syndrome article as we speak.[278] - LouisAragon (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: They just violated 3RR, so they're now siteblocked for 31 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

JonHenryLao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block requested. User has persisted in removing AfD templates after their fourth warning, following a multiple warnings. They are also now edit warring their changes back in. [279][280][281][282] See this diff for why their talkpage seems fairly clean, this was the second time they did this, with different warnings.[283].

Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 02:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Now AfDs are being removed by 47.17.236.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Adakiko (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any constructive edits since their block in September, and a whole lot of warnings in that time, so account indeffed for DE/CIR. IP is a duck, and a static residential duck at that, so hardblocked 1 month. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tancredileone (talk · contribs) is a brand new user who might be able to morph into a good editor if some bad behavior can be nipped in the bud, but he needs a course correction fast and I'm not sure of the best way to do this. He has managed to cause quite a little kerfuffle in only ten career edits (as of 20 July 2022, 23:20 (UTC)). BusterD summed it up best at the Teahouse:

Your disparaging tone in talk page discussions is unwelcome, and insulting other longtime and trusted contributors gets new editors like yourself off to poor start. Gaining the negative attention of three administrators with only one mainspace edit is quite impressive, but not for any good reason. —17:15, 20 July

The situation started with T's addition of a commercial catering service as a reference at the article clambake, reverted by Julietdeltalima, followed by addition of a {{uw-advert4im}} template by jdl on Tancredileone's UTP (5:42, 19 July; as page creation). The situation degraded from there. Since then, most activity has been on his UTP, including additional explanations about Refspam, and attempts to explain and point out WP:INCIVILITY. There's also some refusal to hear explanations on T's part, but the major issue is over-the-top aggressiveness in interactions with other users.

Refspam pointed out or explained to him on his UTP:

• by Julietdeltalima (15:42, 19 July) via {{uw-advert4im}}
• by Julietdeltalima (16:53, 19 July}) (own words)
• by Maproom (07:35, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by David notMD (10:44, 20 July) (own words; at Tea house)
• by Mathglot (10:58, 20 July) (own words)
• by Cullen328 (16:15, 20 July) (own words)

Civility explained at his TP:

• by Ad orientem: (15:31, 20 July)
• by Cullen328 (15:36, 20 July)
• by Ad Orientem (16:11, 20 July) (with formal warning)
• by BusterD (17:15, 20 July) (at the Tea house)

Aggressive responses by Tancredileone:

• by T (to jdl): "I really don't know who you are since you haven't mentioned it yet. Maybe you own wikipedia? Maybe you own those other websites in the references?" (06:43, 20 July)
• by T (to Mathglot) (12:53, 20 July): "[I]f I were you I would start being a little less hypocritical, aggressive and rude, and have less conflict of interests on this 'encyclopedia'. ... It seems that those 'lot of rules' apply exclusively to people that aren't in your circle of trolls so far."
• by T (to Cullen328) (16:28, 20 July): "Ok, so she can insult me and be downright offensive left alone defaming and I cannot even defend myself, good stuff, keep on shining great defenders of the peace of Wikiplanet! ... Good luck you seem to be all on the same page when it comes to harassing and attacking people,"
• Additional prickly responses at the Tea house; opener: "Hi everyone, I've recently added a reference on this page Clambake, someone attacked me rather harshly, threatening of blocking me from editing." —07:06, 20 July) (referring to the {{uw-advert4im}} placed on his UTP)

There are other minor issues, such as persistently requesting pseudonymous users to out themselves (16:29, 19 July, 06:43, 20 July, 12:53, 20 July), insisting on setting the terms of discussion himself and demands that others answer his questions ("still waiting for an answer to my question"-(06:43, 20 July), "You still haven't answered my first question"-((12:53, 20 July), "however did you even take a look at it?"-(15:50, 20 July); "now you need to sign up for a New York Times subscription in order to read that reference!"-(16:28, 20 July), which can be chalked up to growing pains, but there is a real problem in the unnecessarily aggressive attitude towards any editor who either disagrees with him, or doesn't even necessarily disagree but merely points out basic policy and guidelines that might apply to some previous edit of his. If Tancredileone can drop the battleground mentality and adopt a civil tone with others, they could become a productive editor, but I feel like the time window for a change is short and needs to be rapidly addressed.

A word for Tancredileone: if you take this as an attack on you, it isn't. I wouldn't have bothered spending all this time writing this, if I didn't think there was a possibility things could be turned around. You are still very new here; I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended, which is waving the yellow flag so you are aware of the seriousness of the situation, and can make a course correction before it's too late and things get even worse. This is a page on which a lot of administrators hang out. What you want to do here, is think about what's been said by multiple editors, own the behavior that's being pointed out to you, show that you understand what they are saying (even if you don't agree), and make a commitment to interact better with other editors going forward. Feel free to ask questions or make comments on my Talk page any time; I wish you good luck. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. My response has been to work all day to expand and improve the referencing of Clambake, an article that was in poor condition when I started. Cullen328 (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixing missing ping: Ad Orientem. Mathglot (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the props as a possible editor, I feel like I'm the only one who stands accused not sure why, I get it some of the comments were sharp, and so was the first remark I've received, I've only replied to that tit for tat. I'm not the kind of person that gets accused or insulted in real life and says nothing. Only in real life nobody usually dares to insult me, mainly because of respect.

I've only attempted to edit a reference link on a page that as everyone agreed was in bad standing. I saw other references which were completely irrelevant (and commercial) and acted on them. Only to be greeted by this language: "This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Clambake, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising vehicle. Do not ever do this again."

Now I found that a bit much. Nobody ever took into account my good intentions and purpose. When I tried to explain what I did and why they kept going at it like I was some kind of criminal. So it seems that the "good faith" other admins invoked so much was kind of a one-way street thing. At the end of the day, just wondering is it all this publicly defaming me?

(Reason, why I asked other users to share who they actually are, is that in case you haven't noticed you have my real name while I only see pseudonymous and that felt a little creepy besides the obvious privacy issues that it entails on my end) Hope this clear things out, I understand that other users might have intervened out of good intentions, so was I in the first place. Tancredileone (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

• This seems to me to be an example of why we have escalating warnings. I think a 4im spam warning for that initial edit is over-the-top - I would certainly have reverted their edit, but would have given them a level 1 'adding inappropriate links' warning, which is a lot less in your face. Their behaviour since receiving that warning has undoubtedly been over-the-top too, and way too aggressive, but this might have been avoided had they not been nibbled in the first place. Tancredileone: many editors, probably most of us, edit pseudonymously, to protect our privacy - you'll have to get used to that if you want to edit here, it's not creepy, it's the norm. As a beginner, you are going to make mistakes; people are going to point those out, and you are going to have to respond better. I agree that the initial warning was excessive, but none of the other comments on your talk page, from Mathglot or Cullen328 or Ad Orientem, were aggressive or insulting. You need to put yourself in learner mode: if you don't understand something someone has said, don't get angry, ask for guidance. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for chiming in @Girth Summit, ok I put myself in a learner mode. However I still have a public reputation online and all these pages are publicly defaming me. Therefore these are the options I can envision moving forward:

  1 - We forget this all happened *lesson learned and we leave it behind us, deleting all the defaming accusations with my REAL NAME on it (all of the pages containing my name as well as URLs User talk:Tancredileone Starting off on the wrong foot: User:Tancredileone).

  2 - You allow me to edit my name out and use a pseudonymous just like you all are doing.

  3 - If none of the above options work, we would have to ask what the competent authorities think of this and possibly if left no recourse take legal action.

  I'm looking forward to a detailed reply ASAP possibly from an admin @Mathglot, or someone who can address this officially. Thank you. Tancredileone (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Legal threat. Block needed!! This one needs to get a WP:CLUE. - Roxy the mindfulness dog 08:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have blocked Tancredileone for making the above legal threat. Any admin may unblock them without consulting me if they make an unblock request in which they withdraw the threat. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Tancredileone, I've responded at your talk page. (P.S., I'm not an admin.) Mathglot (talk) 13:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand Girth Summit's concerns. I don't usually go to 4im, except when a new user's only edit is to add a link to the website of a small business to an article related to the purpose of that business, in a manner suggesting no attention to detail or familiarity with the encyclopedia's style and content (this seems to happen most often, at least on my watchlist, with household maintenance and repair businesses, followed closely by niche food/beverage providers/makers), as was the case here. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

On closer examination of the circumstances, including some off-wiki stuff which I won't mention here, I actually think the 4im warning was justified, along with a similar warning for UPE. Happy days... Girth Summit _(blether) 23:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, Tancredileone is open about his real name, and he himself added the link that exposes the off-wiki connection - so I don't think it's any outing violation to point out that he was promoting one of his own clients. And having seen the connection, I lost all sympathy. He might be regretting any possible damage to his online reputation, but *he* did the damage, not Wikipedia - and his aggressive threatening behaviour should absolutely not be tolerated. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

One more thing: I have no clue who this person is and would never have recognized his username as a real name if he hadn’t jumped around and shrieked about it. I was perfectly satisfied with my assumption that “Tancredile One” was a vehicle or base or strike force from some “Star Wars”-universe entertainment I’ve never seen. Dude Streisanded his own self. Julietdeltalima (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Costatifrons (talk · contribs) has been making numerous disruptive edits primarily of two specific types: changing links to avoid redirects ^[1][2][3][4] (contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN), and capitalizing the first letter of piped links / changing links to piped links and capitalizing the first letter thereof (unnecessary per MOS:PIPE, resulting in a zero-difference edit that only exists to spam watchlists and irritate people).^[5] There are also a variety of assorted minor edits with no, or slight negative, effects on the article (notably this edit removing a language wrapper which has been made and reverted repeatedly, also found at [284]- see Line 88 in the History of France sidebar in the diff). These habits have been addressed on their talk page on two occasions by three users including an admin, to no effect. Thepsyborg (talk) 03:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It is not the only types of edits I make. I have many times updated international goals. Costatifrons (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Since it has been reported here and Costatifrons replied they made this edit contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN as well as introducing an error in use of he/him. I would also note that changes like this are a really bad idea as the page that is no longer being linked may at some stage be expanded especially if the redirect used the template {{R with possibilities}}. Gusfriend (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems that you English speakers have lost the ability to distinguish between object and subject. It must not be object only because it is last in the sentence. It is actually a shortening of "as drunk as he was" and it proves subject is right. Costatifrons (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Nope. See https://www.antidote.info/en/blog/reports/i-or-me. “Than” can act as a preposition. English is a slippery language: lots of things that look ill-formed are not.

Anyway, that’s getting away from the main point: changing links to avoid redirects is a bad idea. See WP:NOTBROKEN. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you tell us why you made the change to COVID-19 pandemic in Canada since your last update here? Specifically this edit where you replaced [[Emergency Operations Centre]] with [[Emergency operations center]]? Whilst the change was contrary to WP:NOTBROKEN it also changes centre to center contrary to the {{Use Canadian English|date=December 2020}} notice at the top of the page and the fact that it is referred to as the Emergency Watch and Response Centre (according to the page linked from the existing reference).^[1] It should also be capitalised as it refers to the official name of the organisation. Your [[Roche Diagnostics|Roche Molecular Systems]] to [[Roche]] Molecular Systems also meant that rather than being sent via a redirect to the "Diagnostics" section of the Roche page. In this particular case you actually skipped a page that has a history, was merged into the Roche page and may be split there in the future so linking to the redirect is a good thing. Gusfriend (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Gusfriend (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I can not understand why the article name is Emergency operations center if Emergency Operations Centre is the right name. Costatifrons (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

The article is named Emergency operations center, because it's a generic article about the topic and is written in U.S. English since the idea originated in the US. But the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada uses Canadian English, because it's an article about Canada. So in referring to the concept in the article COVID-19 pandemic in Canada the name Emergency Operations Centre is correct, but the link goes via redirect to the article about the general concept. Each name is correct in the context in which it is used. Jahaza (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a guideline about the version of English to use, which you can review at WP:ENGVAR. Jahaza (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am not sure where to go from here as there seems to be a serious level of WP:IDHT as after their most recent edit at ANI they went and did the same thing here. Some of their changes also raise concerns about WP:CIR. Gusfriend (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

FrankensteinsDad is putting the arrest information of the son of Greg Rucka into the article over an over again. They were blocked for edit warring. Then, when discussing they thought it proper to post on my talk and on Sariel Xilo's talk copies of the discussion. Ok, Weird. But in this copy pastes and in their talk page post they wrote "this person whose editing name is לילך5 is not a real wikipedia account. It is a fake name she made up to harass me. Check it out, it's a fake wiki-name!!! Unbelievable....so now Sariel Xilo's using fake editing names to make it look like other editors are supporting her??". This is wrong, and makes discussion impossible.---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 04:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comment: When I reported FrankensteinsDad for edit warring (see 3RR noticeboard & FD's talk), they also accused me of being connected with Rucka. Before their block, FrankensteinsDad spammed my talk page by copying over discussions from other talk pages (see removal of talk spam). With this latest round of spam, I've asked them to stop. I'm not entirely sure if their behavior has crossed into WP:NOPA with the sockpuppet accusations but I would like them to stop spamming my talk page. Sariel Xilo (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• FrankensteinsDad's accusation towards Samuel Xilo's amounts to a personal attack in my opinion, and they have engaged in disruptive editing and edit warring, as shown in the diffs above. However, it should be noted this user has a history of making constructive edits. This user has been around since 2019, but has not made many edits. I think at this point a temporary block somewhere between a week and one month should be a good first start, and, of course, explain what they did wrong to them for potential improvements.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked FrankensteinsDad from Greg Rucka and that article's talk page. Their comments about the subject of this article were utterly unacceptable. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Kpbastola44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is WP:NOTHERE as their entire edit history (deleted and otherwise) shows. Kpbastola44 has been warned about using their user page as a stream-of-consciousness blog but the behavior continues. I think a block is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I had blocked the user per WP:NOTHERE before I noticed this entry here. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I present Inoxent AR (talk · contribs), and these current threads at their talk page: [285] and [286]. It's pretty clear that language barrier is an issue here. Also, apparently they don't understand what 'gender' means, so any person of perceived authority is 'sir' by default. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Changed to more neutral heading from original Really, users who aren't well versed in English ought not be doing vandalism patrol -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Tamzin. My exasperation was showing. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Inoxent AR, do you understand what please don't assume the gender of an anonymous editor means? This is relevant both for user conduct reasons and for reading-comprehension ones. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  They also reverted a change of image from this to this and posted an unconstructive editing notice and edit summary when an explanation of the reason would have been sufficient. As an aside the replacement image was clearer, 10 years newer and a better perspective. Gusfriend (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's relevant to add that they have twice requested rollback privileges, most recently a few days ago [287], when the responding administrator listed a number of reversions of edits that were not vandalism. Additionally, it's not a good sign that rather than responding here, they're continuing on vandalism patrol. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have left a note at their talk page in Urdu (in which I am fluent) here. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  As an aside, if someone could fix that post so that the text is aligned to the right, I would appreciate it; reading it is a bit difficult at the moment. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 04:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @M Imtiaz I've aligned the text to the right. PhantomTech[talk] 04:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• They have continued, making similar problematic reverts again (see their talk page); I have now blocked them for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Slight quirk here in that, about an hour after this thread was started with the goal of allowing a fresh start, the user requested a regular unblock on their main account. (And it seems at least some of the support !votes above were assuming this would be an unblock, not a fresh start under a new account.) @Daniel Case: You've marked the request as awaiting comment from Materialscientist; is that still needed, or can Jfgoofy be unblocked? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tamzin: Materialscientist says he's OK with this unblock, although he believes now that JfGoofy was misstating their age then. I'm OK with it, too. Daniel Case (talk) 03:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  So done, then. I hope no one will mind me flipping the switch despite commenting above. My reasoning, to the extent that it matters, is that I'm not assessing a consensus I was involved in; this was a regular block, not a CBAN, and any admin can overturn it provided that any WP:RAAA issues have been addressed, which they have been here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Another quirk is a non-admin closed this without the ability to unblock. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, probably best to let an admin close when the close requires admin action, snow or not. valereee (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

User:030.jtm has made antisemitic comments on Talk:Visarion Puiu. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm nipping this in the bud right now. A brand new account that starts this line of talk? Indef'd for NOTHERE. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that SoulSurvivor97 had copied my reference from Meena Jutla to Toxic (song) here and left them a talk page message asking them to give attribution. They ignored the message and pasted another of my references here, so I left another message asking them not to do that. After that, they did it here and here. I left a "final message" asking them to not do it again otherwise I would file a report here. They ignored that and continued to copy and paste my referencing; here, here, here, here and here. It did make me wonder if I was right to be annoyed over this due to it being referencing rather than "real content" - but after reading WP:COPYWITHIN, that affirmed my belief since it states that the only referencing that does not need attribution is a bare URL reference. I'm not necessarily coming here to get them blocked as I can see that they are trying to add to the site but after ignoring four warnings, it is disruptive and I need for them to know they cannot continue to do this. – Meena • 09:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the "bare reference" in WP:NOATT means a reference with no accompanying text, rather than a bare URL. If SoulSurvivor97 has simply copied a reference that you added, without copying any additional text, then no attribution is required. Copying references is not unusual, and I've never seen anyone attribute a reference to another article. Meters (talk) 10:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As far as I've found with searching, "Bare references" means WP:Bare URLs only, but I agree with ActivelyDisinterested's interpretation immediately below. I started a discussion at WT:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed: "Bare references". Flatscan (talk) 04:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the pertinent part of the guideline would be the phrase "sufficiently creative". Using a template such as {{cite news}} seems to me to be more akin to filling in a pregenerated form, and so would not be considered a creative work. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 10:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

IMO, best practice is to always attribute to articles (in both the edit summary and on the talk pages of the involved articles) when copying within Wikipedia. Attribution is the right thing to do. That is the way I always do it. It would be a good thing to notify the editor of that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've notified the editor of that. ==Attribution== Text and references copied from [[Source Article]] to [[Recipient article]]. See former article's history for a list of contributors. If you put it on the talk pages, this whole problem goes away. See for example "Text and references copied from André Tintant to 1900 Summer Olympics. See history of former article for a list of contributors." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As someone who spends there time correcting no target errors attribution is always very helpful, but that doesn't make it a requirement. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

(in this case) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Has the world gone mad? Of course references are not the property of any one editor, and it would completely go against Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration to claim that they are. I think Meena needs to find another hobby if they are going to claim that copying references is anything other than a good thing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to find another hobby other than coming to reply on an administrator noticeboard considering you are not, in fact, an administrator. – Meena • 19:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments on this board are not restricted to complainants and administrators. In fact, nobody who has commented in this conversation is an administrator. And Phil is correct about references. Schazjmd (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

SoulSurvivor97 has been given a series of warnings, up to a level 4, and then has been dragged to ANI for copying references without attribution, something that WP:NOATT (in my reading) explicitly allows. It's fine to give attribution for copied sources, it may be best practice, but it is not required. The warnings and the ANI action are not appropriate. If SoulSurvivor97 copied more than just the references, then that is a different matter, but no diffs have been provided of the original addition of the claims and references, so we can't tell. This is not something that requires administrative action. Meters (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is WP:Assume bad faith at its finest. If you successfully make all newcomers to have to attribute references to the original author (or else get copyvio-banned), then Wikipedia would be essentially dead in a matter of weeks. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Amen. This is a complaint I've never heard, and downright bizarre. Of course attribution is not required for copying references. Surreal and such a waste of time. Carlstak (talk) 01:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

No violation of real requirements. But best practice exceeds the requirements for attribution.

I am into fixing the problem (alleged); not fixing the blame.

This kind of WP:ANI is a good way to drive away prospective Wikipedia editors.

It is better to elucidate and educate than it is to punish and intimidate. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Seconded. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"Nice to have" is not a reason to repeatedly template a user with warnings. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm really dumbfounded by the complaint here. I think the description of "downright bizarre" used earlier is quite accurate. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In fairness to the OP: we've got a lot of instruction creep in this project we love so much, and if you wander onto the wrong help page you can easily get the impression that certain things (in this case, attribution) is way more rigidly rule-bound than is actually the case. I think that's what's happened here. EEng 17:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

What SoulSurvivor97 was doing -- copying references -- wasn't wrong and doesn't require attribution. Meena's approach was terrible ("to steal the entire reference and give no attribution credit is cheap" is not a great way to start a conversation with another editor. Nobody is stealing anything here.

That said, SoulSurvivor97 has never communicated on this platform. No discussion-space edits, no edit summaries, and most of the edits aren't on mobile (none on an app AFAICS). Though I think Meena is wrong on the merits and their approach was terrible, I can understand it's frustrating when an editor doesn't respond, and so I sympathize with why Meena opened this ANI. Had SoulSurvivor engaged with Meena in discussion, further escalation might have been avoided.

But the bottom line is that SoulSurvivor can continue copying references without attribution, that's not a problem. The lack of communication is a problem, but it's not causing any harm (yet). Levivich (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Could someone please have a word with LakshayYadav007 (talk · contribs), as their editing is problematic in several ways:

• They have made personal attacks [290][291][292]
• They have uploaded images of dubious copyright status to Commons and forced them back into articles when they have been removed despite them being deletion tagged on commons[293][294]
• They have made and reinstated numerous unhelpful edits to articles (e.g. changing image sizes so they no longer match[295][296])
• They have tried to claim I shouldn't revert their edits because they are Indian and apparently know more about Indian politics than me[297][298]

I also suspect they may be a sock of Atharv Bakshi given the article overlap and behaviour (most recent identified sock was blocked around 10 days before this user appeared). Cheers, Number 57 12:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

They've been given a week to reconsider their approach to the project. Something tells me if they return afterwards it'll next be an indef. Canterbury Tail talk 12:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ping @DaxServer since they filed last SPI Venkat TL (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

My concerns were first prompted by an interaction yesterday with Chip3004 (talk · contribs), over editing at Chickenpox: [299]; [300]. I'd reverted unsourced content by a disruptive account a few days ago, and the user was subsequently blocked. Chip sent me the standard vandalism warning, and I objected and removed it. What followed was this [301], and more oddly, this [302]. After the apology, I would have left this as a tempest in a teapot, but there are other edits that call their competence, and temper, into question. Treating this as vandalism [303], and this talk page comment that ToBeFree (talk · contribs) found [304] suggest occasional difficulty in discerning substantive edits from disruptive ones, and a short-ish fuse. More eyes requested, especially if further edits and comments like these are part of their history. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I made mistake and won't do that again and will make sure i keep my tempure in check. Chip3004 (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The concern here, I think, is mainly that yet another strange "vandalism" claim happened soon after an apology for the same issue. The easiest way to avoid this specific kind of mistake is to learn and understand that "vandalism" means "causing intentional damage to the encyclopedia" and that people are rarely clearly doing so.

If content is selectively removed in a way that doesn't break a sentence, that content may well have been unnecessary, unsourced, non-neutral or otherwise problematic. You may disagree about the removal, but you shouldn't quickly treat it as "vandalism". This applies even if people remove large amounts of text from articles, especially from biographies of living people. Re-instating the text makes you legally responsible for it, so it can't hurt to spend ten seconds on evaluating whether there may be a good reason for the removal. When in doubt, just leave it be, or at least do not treat it as vandalism.

Could you take a moment to explain what led to Special:Diff/1099769959? The time difference between the edit and the revert, and the manual description of the edit as "Vandalism" are not obvious to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree it was a duplicate, the edit summary Should’ve said duplicate instead of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chip3004 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

(fixed the indentation and added a signature for you) Chip3004, this is still incorrect. It's neither vandalism nor a "duplicate". Perhaps you'll find a correct description on the third attempt? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree I now see the difference, It wasn't Spaced correctly and it was too long, I admit that i used the wrong words in the edit summary, I think that fixed spacing would be correct description. Does that sound right? Chip3004 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, perfect, yes. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, and that's what 2600:8800:1600:2a40::a694 did in the reverted edit. Thanks. Okay, so if I understand correctly, you had misread the diff. You thought the editor had duplicated existing text. I can understand this; it's not an absurd mistake. It probably rarely happens to experienced patrollers, but it happens.

There's one aspect left I don't understand. I had indirectly asked about this above, so I think I need to ask more precisely. You have reverted an edit that was almost a day old. My first thought was: "Well, Chip3004 was in a hurry. Chip3004 wanted to be faster than other patrollers." But for this revert, you had a lot of time. 19 hours! Whatever. I'm wondering: Where did you find that edit? Was it on your Watchlist, was it in the Recent Changes?

I'm asking because if I understand correctly, you have filtered your Recent Changes list for "very likely bad" contributions and more-or-less blindly reverted them. As this had led to issues twice in a row, and after you had already apologized for the same mistake, could you please stop doing this?

There's a huge list of things one can do, at the Task Center and the community portal. Reverting vandalism is one of them, but if it persistently causes problems, perhaps you should choose something else for a while.

There also seem to be language problems in our communication, and I'm afraid that's not because of me. If English is not your native language, please consider using a Wikipedia in a language you are more familiar with. If English is your native language, please stop judging others' contributions until this has changed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure Not a problem Chip3004 (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chip3004: 45 minutes after this non-answer, you reverted a 4-hour-old edit as "Unsourced" even though, as far as I can tell, it added no new information to the article. I see that the edit had been flagged as "possible unreferenced addition to BLP". Do you understand that these filter tags are possible violations, and that you are still expected to review whether the tag is correct? Until this thread is resolved, please stop recent-change patrolling or anything along those lines. Otherwise I will have to block you from mainspace at a minimum, because every one of these bad reverts and warnings antagonizes a constructive contributor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin I am okay with that, can please you make an exception while this thread is open ?, I will only revert if i find actual Vandalism like here [305] which is actually Vandalism since Carton Network is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery Networks. I will stop recent-change patrolling or anything along those lines unless it is really vandalism. Chip3004 (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chip3004: You need to stop and listen to what people are saying about your reverts, and fully process that feedback. So no, please do not do any recent-change patrolling. The whole reason you're here is that you seem to be having trouble assessing what "actual vandalism" is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Tamzin would you like me to read up on what is vandalism on Wikipedia? So this issue never happens again. Chip3004 (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Well yes. You should not be reverting vandalism without understanding what vandalism is. But you should also be reading what people, particularly ToBeFree, have said in this thread about your techniques. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Mehedihasan34726 is putting misinformation in List of highest-grossing Bangladeshi films article. I warned him but he is doing it again and again. Please take necessary steps or block him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehediabedin (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Maffty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A new user Maffty who has been reverted many times on the alkaline diet article has moved all their deleted content to a new fork article Dietary acid load. The user has restored removed material on both alkaline diet and dietary acid load quite a few times. The problem is that this user is confusing the potential renal acid load (PRAL) with the alkaline diet and now with the acid-ash hypothesis. Multiple users have engaged this user on the alkaline talk-page for days and their own talk-page but they are not listening to any advice and are continuing to add original research and unreliable content. A previous concern was raised at the fringe theories noticeboard [306] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A quick perusal of Maffty's contribution history suggest to me that despite assertions to the contrary, [307] this is not a new user. Take for example, their 6th edit (made only 6 hours after creating the account), which cites MOS:PUFFERY in the edit summary: hardly typical of a newcomer. [308] The combination of poor English and a stubborn insistence on imposing WP:OR into articles to support a fringe perspective seems familiar to me, though I'm not entirely sure where I came across it previously. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Indeffed for disruptive editing. I'm not familiar enough with the article subjects and do not have time to research at the moment, so am taking no action on the speedy. This should not be taken as disagreeing with it. Star Mississippi 17:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Could use some eyes on Entuziazm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Some problem edits a week ago, then some unhelpful blanking today on Ukranian-related pages (here and here) and then numerous disruptive edits to Susan Wojcicki (and other family members) changing their ethnicity from Polish to Jewish. When warned and reverted, Entuziazm persisted, with increasingly problematic edit summaries suggesting a POV. Then persistent attacks and vandalism to my user and talk page. I've tried to avoid fragrant edit warring but viewed most of this as pure vandalism. AVI seems backlogged as this was reported a few hours ago. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Just flagging since they've suggested creating a sock. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked, and belligerent. Shouldn't be hard to spot. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Lima16 (talk · contribs) has commandeered Bridgeport [311] and to a lesser extent, Greater Bridgeport this month, receiving numerous warnings and much advice re: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNSOURCED, formatting and addition of images. Initially they appeared willing to engage and accept suggestions, but they're now choosing to plow ahead, as at the infobox at Bridgeport. Imzadi1979 has worked hard on the image front, to little avail [312]; this is what the infobox looks like now: [313]. In short, when a small team of editors needs to ride herd like this over the course of a few weeks, [314]; [315]; [316]; [317]; [318], we have a problem. I haven't included diffs from Bridgeport because there are so many reversions. The page edit history says it all. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Good god, what a mess. I'll wait to see what Lima16 has to say, but everyone here needs to slow down; the history is such a garbled disaster I can't even tell what's what. Use the talkpage, it exists for a reason, and I see it's gone entirely unused on both articles; I'd happily watch over to assist with any discussions. And all this over possibly the least interesting place on earth to fight about, I can vouch for Seth McFarlane (a CT native like myself) summing it up well. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A disruptive editor who doesn't communicate should probably be blocked temporarily, because it seems that's the only thing that will get their attention. This user apparently isn't aware of talk pages or their function, based on the contribution history. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and Lima16 certainly isn't collaborating. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that Lima16 has edited since the start of this thread, and it was more of the same, I would agree. I'm pblocking from the two pages at issue here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, The Blade of the Northern Lights. Though I, too, am a longtime CT resident, I have no interest in the articles. Periodically I'd drop by and try to undo some of the damage via targeted surgery, rather than perform a mass reversion, in hopes that Lima would experience a learning curve. Mass reversion is always an option should you decide the overall disruption outweighs the positives. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't want to do a mass revert because the history is so jumbled, and I don't want to break anything in the process (not the most technically minded person, to put it mildly), but I have no objection to anyone who wants to. I'll certainly help out with any talkpage discussions, which I hope are forthcoming, I have no great feelings towards the individual articles. And to the extent there's an issue over images, I'd happily split the baby and just upload a few pictures myself; I'm more familiar with the place than sometimes I wish I was, wouldn't be a big deal to do some guerilla-style photography where needed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A quick look at Bridgeport prior to Lima's edits suggests--to me, at least--that much of what they've added is largely constructive (notwithstanding promotional and junk edits I removed a week or so ago). Mass reversion probably isn't a solution. I'll start a thread on the talk page today or tomorrow, with a link to this discussion. The offer to add your own photos is much appreciated; though during much of the year I travel through the city by train, I don't have occasion to stop there. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely a sort-of WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU situation, so a PBLOCK was 100% the right call. Lima seems to sometimes edit from a desktop/laptop, so hopefully they'll be able to take this time to communicate better and listen to feedback. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Metrolink123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been reverted several times at Manchester when trying to add the claim that it is the UK's second city, has failed to engage in discussion on the article's talk page, and is now resorting to a misleading edit summary to try to sneak the claim in. I think it's time for a temporary block to try to incentivise discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've p-blocked them from editing the article - that deceptive edit summary was unacceptable. If they demonstrate the capacity to edit collaboratively, they can request unblock. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Mancunians argue that the second city of the UK is London. Narky Blert (talk) 10:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That's probably a better solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This user https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/35.143.190.63 User:35.143.190.63 continuous and excessive vandalism. User adds biological name "summer Gwen" to every edit. Please BLOCK NOW!!!.Uricdivine (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

IP blocked for general vandalism. Just an aside, these edits were not really worthy of "Block before it's too late", it's your run of the mill vandalism. RickinBaltimore (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Ricki Baltimore user has created a sock user:patrickmstumph

Whatever this is, it's not even fresh and clever. See

• Summerozelsel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DMacks (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A vandal? Being unfresh and not clever? Who would have thought. ^[sarcasm] casualdejekyll 18:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Keeps adding inappropriately sourced genealogy links to the BLP Lucas Kunce. Andrevan@ 19:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) persists in adding dubious and irrelevant content to articles on topics related to Macedonia (see this and this) and engages in spiteful discussions with other users who warn him on the previously established consensus (see this). The user has been blocked for similar engagements multiple times in the past, with the last indefinite block being lifted after three years. I don't think that blocking a user is the right sanction for disruptive editing on a single topic, so imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would be more efficient in my opinion. Thanks.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:56, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone. A while ago I have got a message on my talk page about opening this discussion from the editor who started it. I find that I have been accused of some disruptive editing on 2 articles. However I don't understand why this happened without ending the discussion on the Macedonian language article talk page where is one. Also, there was no discussion at all on the second article's talk page about Hristian Mickoski. Regarding my edit on the page for the Macedonian language when requested a source with a citation, I have added one and there there are not any changes in the main text. I was treated rudely on the talk page there, and I was accused of being a paid editor supported by a government official for my work on Wikipedia. I do not accept this as a normal behaviour. As for the article about Mickoski, the text that is the subject of dispute concerns the contradictions with him, related to his attitude towards Bulgaria and the paradox that his wife has Bulgarian citizenship. Sources have been presented for the veracity of these circumstances and I don't see what the problem is. If I have to be completely honest, the political relations between Bulgaria and North Macedonia are very tense at this moment. At the moment in North Macedonia is one of the peaks of Bulgarophobia in recent years and the Bulgarians feel somewhat affected. Probably this also affects the editors from these two countries who write here. In this regard, I would like to point out that I am one of the best experts on the Macedonian issue here, and for years this has not pleased some of the editors from North Macedonia, who periodically try to report me here with some proposals like today's. I do not accept that there are real grounds for imposing on me any specific restrictions on the subject of topics related to Macedonia, due to an alleged but unproven destructive redactions. However, if someone is personally affected by my edits, I would apologize for that. Thank you everyone. Jingiby (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project where community discussions lead up to consensus, so making changes that violate its policies and previous discussions is uncollaborative and disruptive. In this particular case, your behaviour in the articles on the Macedonian language and on Hristijan Mickoski is out of the spirit of Wikipedia.

• Macedonian language is an article which attracted a lot of tense discussions in the past and was even subject to arbitration with a clear outcome. Therefore, it's highly recommended to check the archived discussions (in some of which you were a participant) to get familiar with the community's stance on the matter. Furthermore, your disputed edit can't be allowed in the article until the issue is resolved on the talk page, so this revert can be properly considered an act of edit warring.
• Hristijan Mickoski is an article to which WP:BLP applies and adding libelous opinions by individuals, such as this one, is totally out of the spirit of an encyclopedia.

I really don't know how a user, who has been editing Wikipedia for so many years and has been instructed zillion times about its policies, can add the sentence "According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe" in an article on a living person. That's definitely not a good-faith contribution.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that in the case with Mickoski, it is about political bias. The man in question is considered in Bulgaria to be a person who often takes extreme anti-Bulgarian positions. If this is indeed the case, and there are reliable sources for such claims, I see no reason why this should not be reflected in the article about this person. However, it is about information in the "controversies" section. It does not highlight the positive qualities of people, even if they are alive. As for the article about the Macedonian language, I will repeat that adding an academic source, even if this was requested by another editor, is not a violation.Jingiby (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment These are content issues, read WP:RfC and seek input from the wider community to solve them. You are wasting time here. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment As currently am interested in editing something related to Macedonia and Bulgaria, and in the past had constructive instances with Jingiby, am a bit stunned by the report and probably reluctant to engage any articles related to those countries. It is taking things way out of proportions. The edits by Jingiby were done using reliable sources, attributed and in appropriate sections (as per NPOV). I didn't saw any problem with Jingiby's editing in the last 5 years, at least on articles I worked on. I would advise everyone to continue or start discussing at article talk pages considering WP:BRD instead of immediately reporting an editor for bold edits.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Ktrimi991: We can't open an RfC and waste someone's time for every single edit a user insists on in an article. That's a perfect example of disruptive editing that should be prevented. @Miki Filigranski: I don't see how adding the opinion of an individual Bulgarian politician that someone is a "Bulgarophobe", which was published in the headline of a Bulgarian news website, justifies WP:BRD. This is not about who's right on what. It's about Wikipedia and its policies. If Wikipedia were a place where everyone could add personal opinions exchanged between celebrities and published in tabloids, then who knows where the end would be.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I see editors insisting on their own almost every day - I do not report them. I have insisted in some cases on my edits for weeks - nobody reported me for that. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The difference is that this user was blocked for similar things multiple times and still doesn't show to have learnt anything from it. Therefore, imposing a ban from the topic "Macedonia" would solve the problem for good even without a block.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: the editor literally done only two same edits at Macedonian language with one revert (small discussion at talk page started only two days ago), while at Hristijan Mickoski both of you are edit warring since 9 July and both of you didn't start discussing at talk page. Wikipedia is a (team)work in progress, don't rush the edits, but also don't postone discussing and dispute resolutions. Reports to ban or block someone are rarely a solution. This is starting to look like a witchhunt.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Discussing with the wider community whether the sentence According to the MEP Andrey Kovachev, Mickoski is an extreme Bulgarophobe belongs in an article on a living person and whether the text "The obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists for a separate Macedonian ethnicity could be supported only by linguistic reality, and that worked against them until the 1940s. Until a modern Macedonian literary language was mandated by the communist-led partisan movement from Macedonia in 1944, most outside observers and linguists agreed with the Bulgarians in considering the vernacular spoken by the Macedonian Slavs as a western dialect of Bulgarian". should appear in an article that has been subject to arbitration is totally absurd. And it's completely irrelevant if such claims appear in sources or not. There is an academic community supporting the flat earth theory, but it doesn't mean that we need a community consensus that the Earth is not flat. There always has to be a red line for what's worth discussing and what's not.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, you're taking things out of proportion and yes, it should be discussed. There's nothing absurd about discussing things especially not these which are part of NPOV/WEIGHT, sometimes simply is nedeed to have again a discussion. The scientific debate & viewpoint of Macedonian language identity and relation to Bulgarian language is totally not on the level of flat Earth theory. Actually, it is the only solution to not have (war-)edits with such, for you worthless and controversial, information or viewpoint in the future.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. You've clearly stated your opinion, so let's see what do others, especially administrators, think on the matter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment: Not again. This is the 3rd (or 4th time?) that User:Jingiby is being reported on Macedonia topic area-related content disagreements. This is plainly unacceptable to see happening. I gotta agree with editors Miki Filigranski and Ktrimi991 and I would advice Kiril Simeonovski that they try to discuss with Jingiby at the Talk page instead of reporting them and asking for a topic ban. A topic ban is a serious measure and is meant to act more as a preventative step aiming at protecting a topic area and preventing wide-range POV disruption from occuring to it. A topic ban is not an appropriate punishment for a disagreement between two editors. I don't think the admins even have to hear our opinions here at all. It is recommended that this case is closed and the filler is encouraged into using dispute resolution procedures instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:44, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment: Since I have joined Wikipedia, I have encountered Jingiby across numerous articles relating to the Macedonia topic area. Despite the fact that we tend to sit on opposite sides of the fence (for example, 1), I find Jingiby to be a user focused on making quality edits with valid sources that meet WP:RS. In fact, he helps to undo vandalism and check/evaluate many edits across articles in the Macedonia topic area and it would be wrong to topic ban him on something he contributes to in a positive way. Especially for something that seems to be a content-related disagreement, hence why we have the whole idea of TP's. Botushali (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@SilentResident and Botushali: Do you think that expressions such as “extreme Bulgarophobe”, “obviously plagiarized historical argument of the Macedonian nationalists” and “mandated by the communist-led partisan movement” are acceptable and in line with Wikipedia’s neutral point of view? The main problem here is the abrasive language used in the edits. This is an encyclopedia, not a flea market.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kiril Simeonovski: regarding the edited words on Macedonian language article, are you really accusing the editor for words he didn't even write nor edit into main text yet a reference quote stated by Dennis P. Hupchick? The quote itself isn't even controversial and outside of what can be found at Macedonian language#Political views on the language and articles Political views on the Macedonian language.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia with well-established policies on the language and style used across articles. If something appears in reliable sources, it doesn’t mean that it can be readily quoted. There are zillions of academic publications in which authors use such language on different topics, but that doesn’t make an argument that Wikipedia has to adjust its policies to accept it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'd argue there's at least a behavioral element here. Jingiby has inserted Bulgaria into barely-related articles to the point that Cincinnati chili ended up under DS sanctions for the Balkans and EE because they insisted the exact ethnicity of the inventors of this midwestern-US spiced meat sauce was important in understanding the article subject and wanted to support the insertion with OR, synth, an interview with one of the inventors' nephews, etc. Which is silliness. This takes up almost the entire content of an archive there, which is ridiculous for a US food item. Jingiby isn't unwilling to discuss and compromise, but certainly a lot of my own time went into trying to prevent insertion of nationalistic content w/re Bulgaria. I think warning them that this is taking up other editors' time without improving the encyclopedia for readers is not a ridiculous idea. valereee (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello valereee. We had some disagreements a while ago, but I think a compromise was always reached. People are different though. Jingiby (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby, yes, and I said above that you weren't unwilling to discuss/compromise. valereee (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t want to look like a witch-hunter because I generally don’t support blocking users at all (I even unblocked this same user on the Macedonian Wikipedia after he had been blocked for three years.), but imposing a (temporal) ban from a topic to a user who hasn’t learnt much from the mistakes made in the past seems to be a very reasonable solution to me. Wikipedia is a learning environment. Users who have been blocked for something in the past should come back and revisit their behaviour so that it’s not repeated again. I understand that some participants in this discussion seek the solution in a discussion with the user, which is a textbook recommendation, but that’s something which was done many time before and apparently to no avail. So, starting a new discussion with the user in order to explain that the behaviour is unacceptable is like talking to a brick wall. That’s why we shouldn’t invest someone’s time in discussions on minor things that didn’t have success in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment This proposal is not serious. In the recent years, Jingiby has established himself as (1) competent in the topics he is contributing to; (2) a participant of positive attitude, respectful of those who do not share his views; and (3) always willing to listen different opinions, discuss and compromise. Users like Jingiby are valuable assets of English Wikipedia who help improve the quality of Wikipedia project, and whose effort deserves tribute. Best, Apcbg (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Apcbg, when an editor requires other editors to make lengthy arguments about whether Bulgaria belongs in Cincinnati chili, it becomes they become less of a valuable asset and more of a net negative. There comes a point at which civil disagreement becomes sealioning. I am not saying Jingiby is there. I am saying that claiming "This proposal is not serious" is disingenuous. valereee (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee, my thesis was that this culinary product (Cincinnati chili) was invented by Macedonian Bulgarians, i.e. Kiradjieff brothers, which is an indisputable fact. However, this circumstance is taboo and does not appear in the article about it till today. Jingiby (talk) 05:22, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not about Cincinnati chili, it's about the ethnic identity and self-identification of the American (same for Canadian, Australian etc.) immigrants from Aegean Macedonia, Vardar Macedonia and Pirin Macedonia, an issue that, besides chili, proves relevant to quite a few Wiki articles and probably warrants a unified approach. Best, Apcbg (talk) 07:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

And his ethnic identity is in the article about him, where it absolutely belongs, although I'd still argue there's an awful lot of OR going on at that article in service of proving he was Bulgarian. I decided it wasn't worth arguing about. Which is absolutely the crux of the problem with this kind of behavior: other editors just throw up their hands and decide it's not worth arguing about. valereee (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Crux of the problem indeed, expecting for Jingiby to just throw up his hands and decide it's not worth arguing about. Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm finding that to be a mischaracterization of the situation given how patient people were at Cincinnati chili with someone who argued for nearly a week in favor of using OR, synth, interviews with nephews to shoehorn Bulgaria into an article about a midwestern meat sauce in the face of clear consensus against their preferred version. I also feel it's an example of deflection; you're accusing the other editors at that argument of being the ones engaging in WP:Civil POV pushing because we were willing to continue to try to discuss with the person who hadn't gained consensus. Any of multiple experienced editors at that discussion could have declared consensus literally days earlier and simply told Jingiby their arguments were becoming disruptive. valereee (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Valereee, my view of the situation you described is quite different. However, I don't think it's appropriate to bother the audience with our former arguments. We remain on different positions on the matter, but I respect your opinion. That is why we have reached a compromise. I hope you also respect my views because I am entitled to them. Greetings! Jingiby (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby, I believe that in your mind you are arguing for what you see as improvements. The problem is that when someone has a very strong opinion on a subject, it's often difficult for that person to edit neutrally on that subject. And I don't think you'd argue that Bulgaria and the representation of Bulgarians is not a passionate interest of yours. I believe that for you, it rises to the level of a conflict of interest, and that you need to take that COI into account when others are arguing with you. And if you can't take that into account and adjust your behavior accordingly, you're eventually going to be t-banned from the Balkans/EE. valereee (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Valerie, I don't think it's right for you threatening me. I do not agree with your statements above about my Bulgarian representations. if you want I will go into details to present my thesis. The article in question repeatedly mentions Greece and the Macedonian Greeks, as well as Macedonian immigrants, but not once Bulgaria/Bulgarians, despite the inventors of the chilli immigrated to the US from Bulgaria and felt themselves Bulgarians. Despite this, I don't think the place discussing this is here. Also, I have a bitter experience of arguing with admins who start hating me and block me repeatedly after that. I don't want to mention names. Full stop. Jingiby (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not threatening. Under no circumstances would I act as an admin w/re you and Bulgaria, as I've interacted with you as an editor on that, which makes me involved. Here, I am simply an experienced editor, just like you. FWIW, I'm completely open to further edits at CC w/re mentioning Greeks/Macedonians. It just needs RS and consensus. valereee (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've worked with Jingiby in the past couple of years on many subjects. Everyone in the Balkan topic area has a POV, just as everyone has a POV in general. It's part of human nature. The point is to be self-reflective towards our own POVs and be more inclusive towards aspects of other POVs. Jingiby is one of the Balkan editors who have managed to do that and the accusations by the filing editor don't match my experience of working with Jingiby. In the Macedonian topic area some issues cannot be fixed because the narratives which editors from North Macedonia consider to be the "correct version" of history usually don't match international bibliography. It's not their fault because this is what they're familiar with but the radical difference between what Macedonian historiography discusses about figures like Gotse Delchev and what all other sources discuss cannot be reconciled by looking for a "middle ground" because there can be no middle ground between historical accuracy and these narratives.--Maleschreiber (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Can't agree more with Maleschreiber. Best, Apcbg (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Jingiby is often a problematic editor on Macedonia-related articles. It takes a special type of editor to turn articles about American hot dogs and Chili into opportunities to satisfy Bulgarian POV cravings. Jingiby has been banned in the past and was allowed back through a gracious unbanning (check out that lengthy block log). He’s been more disciplined in his second era, however he still regularly falsifies sources, adds content not backed by sources, adds irrelevant information to articles, etc. Macedonia-related articles tend to be a mess so most editors “throw their hands up” as User:valereee states above. However, when a non-Macedonian/Bulgarian editor delves in just a bit, the issues become apparent as for example I think User:Ashmedai 119 has shed light on this recently. --Local hero ^talk 18:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I am admittedly more of a lurker than a committed editor of this encyclopedia and when I have time to kill I sometimes checks recent edits made in articles related to the history of Balkan peoples. In my very limited -- both in time and in number of edits -- participation in enwiki during the last year, however, I have encountered enough editors active in this topic area to understand that it is not uncommon to try to edit articles so that they present contested issues from the national(ist) point of view with which they identify. What I have found out in almost each encounter with Jingiby, in addition to a constant effort to advocate the theses of Bulgarian nationalism with regards to Macedonian issues, is something that I hope is not common among Wikipedia editors, and in fact my limited experience does suggest that it is only Jingiby that exhibits these traits. For, it was not once, not twice, but thrice that I found Jingiby had either misleadingly used a source to uphold the very position that the author was refuting, or had outright falsified the source he referred to the readers or had altered the quote he cited. I can't and don't follow all of Jingiby's edits, but I would not be surprised to discover more such cases in his recent contributions. In any case, I cannot consider it something else but self-imposed blindness to disregard the fact that in all three cases Jingiby's falsification was promoting the Bulgarian national(ist) point of view. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

An editor Volgabolgari with less than 30 edits and with an apparent fixation concerning the authority on the topic he derives from being a descendant of one of the cultures mentioned, has come to the Khazar page and repeatedly (despite my remonstrations on his talk page) persisted in writing into the text his personal idea about one of the languages spoken by Khazars. As I have repeatedly noted, the text as it stood cites directly a world expert on the topic, Marcel Erdal, but he disagrees. It's not a content dispute. It is tampering with a major secondary source out of personal dislike. See for example

• here
• here
• here
• here
• here
• here repeating a sentence that already existed (it is copied and pasted actually from a text by Dan Shapira, but with the flurry of VB’s edits all requiring correction, I’ve no time yet to fix it)
• here
• here etc.etc.

Worse. Everytime I edit, or make a suggestion to them, I get a personal ‘thank you’ notification as the editor then reverts again. He refuses to use the Khazar talk page. Help please. Nishidani (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

notified hereNishidani (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what happened but you 1st/4th/5th diffs are all the same, as are your 2nd/3rd diffs. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Well Nishidani, I must say that the series of edits you linked above, including your own, is a hilarious comedy of blunders. First, you took care to write an extended edit summary but broke wikilink formatting [319]. Then you moved it to a different section but keeping broken formatting [320]. Then you "fix" the template by closing it with wrong braces [321]. There comes Kansas Bear to fix it, removing a space and an apparently valid sentence along [322]. Volgabulgari actually restores the article to a sane form [323] but you insist on having a broken section title immediately afterwards [324]. Add the above botched report to the list of your sins.
Now, Volgabulgari may be new but his edits were not unreasonable under the circumstances; he explained himself fine in this summary [325]. And I understand why he takes exception at calling the language "Bulgarian"; in fact, our redirect reads Volga Bulgar language. So, can everybody be just nice to each other now, and discuss the concerns on Talk:Khazars? (I mean you, Volgabulgari, in particular; edit summaries are not the best place for that). No such user (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry, I did not realize I had removed part of a sentence. I just saw Nishidani trying to fix a sfn reference(I still have issues with those). My intent was to fix the reference, not to remove any information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Restored what I mistakenly removed. Hopefully this does not cause a bigger problem. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

That was a great explanation. Thank you. I'm new and i'm not sure how to use Wikipedia, yet. Volgabulgari (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You’re quite right. No such user I don’t know whether it was the fatigue of controlling for some hours several topics misrepresented on that, already intricate, page, the sizzling heat here or dementia or all three. For the record, the tiff began with the refusal of VG to adhere to the precise language of the source for the text he continually manipulated. We are dealing with historically obsolete languages, about whose interrelation there is a huge amount of scholarship. Chuvash survives, but the rest are known mainly through conjectures from scarce residues. Here’s what happened: For Volgarbulgari Marcel Erdal states that the Khazar language is believed to belong to the Oghuric branch of the Turkic languages,

This is incorrect. the source Marcel Erdal, The Khazar Language writes:

Among the present-day Turkic languages Chuvash, spoken mostly in the Chuvash republic (situated roughly between Tatarstan and Moscow), constitutes a branch in itself. Its closest relative is Volga Bolgarian, . . The most discussed question concerning the language of the Khazars has been whether it belongs to this aberrant Chuvash-Bolgar branch of Turkic or not. Most Turcologists have thought it did, but Golden 1980, for instance, tended towards the opposite view.

VB's using Erdal as a subset of the Oghuric branch (that was the article's context at this particular juncture), when Erdal is raising the possibility of Chuvash being 'a branch of itself arose from a failure to read the source.

Erdal is not writing about Oghuric, but making a case for antecedents for the only surviving exemplar of Oghuric, Chuvash in two varieties, as relevant to the Khazar language. To assert he confirms the obvious, that Khazar is Oghuric, when Erdal is focusing on a far more complex philological subset of Oghuric, completely misses the point, and makes citing Erdal pointless, indeed misleading.

As part of tidying up the article, I corrected this source falsification in this edit where the key adjustment is writing of the Klhazar language as related not only or simply to Oghuric as Volgabulgari insists but also arguably has affinities with ‘Chuvash/Volga-Bulgarian

• VolgarBulgari reverts this out, contradicting the source he retains

I restored it here, telling the editor to read Erdal, ‘downloadable at academia.edu’

• Volgabulgari removes it a second time with the garbled and incomprehensible edit summary:’ Adding Volga Bulgar example in Khazar language is unnecessary, this is not a place of Kangz. Saying this as a descendant of Volga Bulgars (Chuvash)).’

I again revert to the language used in the source even Volgabulgari does not question.

• In the meantime Volgabulgari reinserts a passage that is already alluded to in the text, though it is unsourced

Contemporary sources often used the names “Khazar” and “Turk” interchangeably, reflecting thus the continuation of the Western Turk Khaganate rule among the Khazars. . . . Until the emergence of the Khazar domination in Eastern Europe, which followed the fall of the Western Turkic Qaḡanate in 659, the Khazars cannot be distinguished from their masters, the Western Turk

The problem is that this precise wording is copied fro m two sections (synthesis) and pasted - a copyright violation, -from the first para of Dan Shapira’s Khazars in Encyclopedia iranica online Vol. XVI/5 p.511. The passage was there before VB reedited it in, but in doing so he unwittingly abets what was a piece of wiki plagiarism that required correction by some form of paraphrase.

• ‘there is no such thing as Volga Bulgarian, it should have been Volga Bulgar. 2ndly Volga Bulgar language is already a proven oghuric language.’ This is the one edit by VG that is almost a proper correction, (but Erdal wrote Volga-Bolgarian', I slipped writing Volga-Bulgarian) but it still ignores the language of the source, Erdal.

So I altered it to replicate Erdal’s precise terminology replacing BV’s Volga-Bulgar with Chuvash-Bolgar, supplyingt the precise passage from Erdal in a footnote.

• VB then has second thoughts and changes the Erdal source term Chuvash-Bolgar with Bolgar. I had originally written / and then replaced it with ‘and’ to accommodate VB. He VB corrects this, insisting that ‘so it can be "such as forms of the oghuric branch like chuvash-bolgar". Doing it as "oghuric languages and chuvash-bolgar" seems you want to separate these languages from oghuric branch.’
• VB then changes his mind and reverts his own correction. He can'0t make up his mind, and my attempts to fix things got confused by the noise of his overhasty editing.

I take anything from 1 to several hours over most edits because several sources are usually required to be read before one chooses just one. I dislike facile editing which has an opinion, and no sources, and takes seconds.VG's chopping and changing, backtracking and reverting did stress me. He should have used the talk page.Nishidani (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

This user, Special:Contributions/172.93.165.103, has reverted the edits on both Paramount Vantage and A Christmas Story 2. Could you please do something about this so that he doesn’t do it again? AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Where's the urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems? – ².O.^Boxing 15:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Particularly as the other editor was right to remove your unsourced original research, which I see you have re-added to both articles. Fish+Karate 16:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed unsourced material from both pages. AdamDeanHall (talk) 18:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You have additionally failed to notify 172.93.165.103 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) of this discussion, as the red box on top of this page and the editing window clearly require. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 21:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I notified the user of what I did yesterday. AdamDeanHall (talk) 12:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

You notified them of reverting their edits, you did not notify them that you were opening a section on the ANI board as required. I will also note that you then reverted your reversions of their reversions (since you were adding unsourced info and the IP's edits seemed okay there.) It seems the IP has since been blocked for disruptive editing, however I don't think there was anything wrong with the user's edits, they seem fine to me and a block not needed. Canterbury Tail talk 12:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: as I think the IP user was actually incorrectly blocked, there's nothing in their edits that warrants a block, they were removing unsourced material and correcting some headers. Canterbury Tail talk 12:46, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Disagree. Too many unexplained reverts/edits, but I actually blocked them because they started doing it from another IP as well. Drmies (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• The entire /17 is webhosting, so I blocked it for that. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

A newish contributor, Make way for Tigers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making repeated accusations of political bias, 'censorship' and now 'fascism' at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersonville Theological Seminary, culminating in one which states that the Wikipedia community is guilty of prestige whoring and enforcement of a leftist agenda (which constitutes the enforcement of Liberal Fascism). (diffs for 'fascism'[332],[333]) Since such attacks can add nothing but acrimony to the discussion, and since it seems self-evident that Make way for Tigers is unwilling to accept that deletion discussions are focussed on notability as demonstrated through reliable sources, rather than on vague unsourced assertions, and that personal attacks are entirely inappropriate, I suggest that this contributor be blocked from further participation in the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor from both the AfD debate and the article. Their conduct has been way out of line. Cullen328 (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The account "Mekitembem21" is being used for advertising only. [345] It is also appears to be the same editor as Masyarno, which has been blocked indefinitely for spamming. [346]. ḾỊḼʘɴίcả • Talk • _{I DX for fun!} 18:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked for spam. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Those URLs seem that they should be easy enough to blacklist as well. Canterbury Tail talk 18:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just blocked Zvfibkoj (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring, personal attacks and grossly inappropriate edit summaries at 2022 monkeypox outbreak, despite multiple warnings. They immediately responded by sending me the following two emails:

I am gonna have you for that you little rat I will wait 24 hours and I will be back on the second!

I am God and you are going to burn like hell when you die and see me in the spirit world do I make that clear you will never recover from this ever again!

Sickening homophobe +1000 gay lives you to Ra and Oshir can not wait to judge and condemn you

and

I will trash all your other edits to GO ON BRING IT

So I reblocked with email disabled, but I'm wondering if there is any reason not to just indef them, given their edit summaries and emails clearly indicate that they have no intent to learn how to edit collaboratively. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Bumped to indef. valereee (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks like we have a sock. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Sock blocked by Bbb23. -- Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi'd the article. valereee (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

While I agree with the decisions and the outcome, I must say it struck me as really bad form for User:Thryduulf to quote private email communications in a public discussion page, in spite of its amusement value. It would have been enough simply to describe the emails as full of emotional invective and threats. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I get that. In general I disapprove of sharing private emails. If these had been part of an exchange that turned into a disagreement or became heated, absolutely not okay to share. For me, something unsolicited that is completely just an attack out of the blue...I'm a little unsure whether that is privacy that needs to be protected. valereee (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Whatever the rights and wrongs of my sharing the emails, I absolutely did not do so for "amusement value" (until your comment it hadn't occurred to me that anyone might find them amusing, I certainly don't) but rather as evidence to explain my actions and thinking. Thryduulf (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There's nothing whatsoever wrong with publishing those emails - anyone who uses email to send abuse and/or threats has no right to privacy. 17:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs)

I'm going to back Boing! here, sharing the content of an abusive email to explain the ban is a legit reason. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

In this case, I see no problem in sharing these emails. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Person definitely needed to be indeffed Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I am a Hindu so I am not worried about eternal damnation, or words like ever/never. But just in case they are god, wont they be able unblock themselves, and suppress/oversight entire mainspace? —usernamekiran (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  If they are god, presumably they wont even need to unblock themselves or require suppression/oversight to remove content from the encyclopaedia. If they are just a god then maybe, maybe not but that wasn't their claim. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  yeah, they didnt make any claims to remove the data/content. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Impersonation[edit]

GabberFlasted alt account (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The account posting the above incident, is not me. I'm not sure exactly what noticeboard this should fall to but I wanted to get this down somewhere ASAP. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yep, we're on it - see my comment above. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Its greatly appreciated. GabberFlasted (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think I've blocked all the accounts here. If there are any stewards watching (ThereNoTime?), if you look at the CU checks I just ran, I think you'll find quite a few blocked accounts that really ought to be globally locked. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Urgh, reping TheresNoTime Girth Summit _(blether) 17:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Vox (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In the Vox (political party) we got a sudden interest of several newly created accounts (Tom63552, Diegn5, DanskPolitikDK) to change the long-standing version of the article's lead to tell in WP:WIKIVOICE a particular biased view on the article's subject, and to eliminate alternative perspective from the lead, instead a WP:NPOV characterization of the subject in the long-standing version. The involved accounts ignored warnings about the need to abide WP:NPOV, and invitations to follow WP:BRD joining discussion in the article's Talk page. At some point, Tom63552 also has violated 3RR rule. To remediate the incident a page protection request has been raised. Please, consider this posting as the request to check aforementioned accounts for sockpuppetry, and if confirmed, to apply corresponding sanctions to these accounts.

At least three sockpuppets have been blocked by other administrators. I have semi-protected the article for a month because the disruption has been going on for about two weeks. Cullen328 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco each have an existing topic ban regarding lists of political parties in Italy (Special:PermaLink/1087724241) due to a series of drawn-out feuds. Regardless of the ban, both editors continue to extensively debate whether certain entities are in fact political parties in Italy on a variety of satellite pages. I would ask someone more experienced than I evaluate whether this is in violation of the topic ban (WP:TBAN: "a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic... For example, if an editor is banned from the topic 'weather', this editor is forbidden from editing not only the article Weather, but also everything else that has to do with weather.") The long-running debate between User:Scia Della Cometa and User:Checco that led to the initial ban is being reignited on pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veneto for Autonomy, among several others. The continued exhaustive debates between the two users feels in violation of the topic ban previously (and recently) imposed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civic Sardinia the other user and I agree! This said, User:SDC and I have been blocked only from the pages List of political parties in Italy and Talk:List of political parties in Italy. There is no topic-ban upon us. Just to let know, my only wrong was to kindly answer to each and every proposal by User:SDC in the latter talk page and embarking ina dispute resolution which was not well managed. While considering the block unfair, I accepted it and I focused on updating articles. Over the last months, User:SDC proposed 30+ articles on political parties/coalitions for deletion. He was very sincere in explaining to another user that "since the list of Italian parties will have to be completed in the future, I am simply proposing for deletion the pages that do not seem relevant to me" and "I am proposing the pages for deletion only after evaluating their content, the author is irrelevant to me. It is simply necessary to slightly thin out the number of pages of parties, to make the list of Italian parties more usable in the future". I would have refrained from that and I am now suggesting User:SDC to stop proposing pages for deletion, but, as always, I am sure of his good faith. We had disagreements, but we have always discussed and disagreed in a very civil and transparent way. There is a forthcoming general election in Italy: it is better focusing on updates rather than AfDs. Surely, I have been opposing deletions, but, while User:SDC's good faith is evident to me, it should be clear to everyone that I have never started any dispute or AfD, I only answered to discussion started by others (mainly User:SDC) and I think I did nothing wrong in answering. --Checco (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@49ersBelongInSanFrancisco It has already been clearly explained to you, the ban concerns only and exclusively the List of political parties in Italy. If you had read the discussion (which you evidently didn't do or roughly did) you would have seen that the topic ban proposer himself stated: "they may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic." Cheers.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 06:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• The "topic ban" was:

  ...be topic-banned and partially blocked from the specific article and its talk page for three months: List of political parties in Italy ... They may edit in any related areas such as more specific lists of parties, or AFDs to delete parties not having a reliable source, or any other topic.

  The confusion seems to stem from everyone in that discussion referring to this as a "topic ban" (WP:TBAN) when it's actually an article ban (WP:ABAN). Levivich (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clear explanation. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Nua eire (talk · contribs)

This editor is going around changing charts without discussion and edit warring as well [354] [355] [356] [357] [358] [359]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I've notified Nua eire (talk · contribs) on their talk page on your behalf, please make sure to do this in future. Zudo ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You are reporting me for updating pages with accurate information. I work in the Irish music industry therefore I should know and have provided evidence for these change. The OCC has never been the official chart compiler for Ireland they only host information on their website similar to the US and French charts will we also change these to the OCC? Zudo TheAmazingPeanuts how do you report profiles that persistently use OCC because they are spreading disinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

Both of you are edit-warring. Discuss the issue on the article talk pages or the relevant Wikiproject rather than reverting each other. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Phil Bridger: I reverted Nua eire's edits only twice in those articles, and did you even pay attention to the edits? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You have not right to take that tone to @Phil Bridger:. You are being rude and encouraging the spread of misinformation OCC is not the official chart complier for Ireland. Will you be changing it for the US chart positions too? as the OCC also carry the billboard charts on their website? No, I don’t think you will, because it would make no sense and it would be factually inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

@Nua eire: The reason why I revert your edits because you didn't bother to have an discussion at WT:CHARTS first. It doesn't matter if the chart is correct or not, you must start an discussion and restoring your edits doesn't help either (see WP:BOLD). TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I will start a discussion however, the issue of the OCC was created by someone else a few months ago where it was always IRMA until someone changed it and nobody caused such drama or needed open a discussion about this. Using the OCC is factually inaccurate and the fact you accuse me of vandalism and reporting me for using actual facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nua eire (talk • contribs)

@Nua eire: That's not a fact, it's opinion. Revert your edits right now and not being disruptive because you don't know what you doing here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It is 100% fact go look at www.irma.ie if you do not believe me. You are beyond insulting and assume you are correct on everything but you are not. Do not undo my work in the future. Nua eire (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Phil Bringer. I would strong suggest discussing the issue on talk or project pages and WP:BRD is a good starting pointing. You need to remember that Wikipedia is all about generating consensus. It is also good to remember WP:NPA. Gusfriend (talk) 12:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

User:JordanKSM was temp blocked for mass removal of content at Chinese people in Myanmar. In response they insulted the admin and accused them of working for the CCP, racism, more racism, accusation of canvassing, tried to hide racism, still insulted admins. I warned them of WP:NPA: [360]. They responded with this: [361]. Qiushufang (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I've made them go away. None of that is acceptable in any way. I will always indef for racist comments and attacks. Canterbury Tail talk 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Following a series of disruptive edits on the article about Bret Weinstein,[362] which escalated into an edit war that resulted in the article being locked,[363] User:Aussiewikilady received a number of warnings from three different users on their talk page.[364] The day they received these warnings, they responded by blanking their user talk page, thereby acknowledging the warnings.[365]

Since then they have continued to engage in disruptive editing on different articles, removing instances of the "she" pronoun from the article on Chelsea Manning (claiming that they were trying to "offset a 1984 vibe of changing history")[366] and adding the former name of Elliot Page to the article for the film Juno.[367] These edits have since also been reverted,[368] twice in the case of Manning's article.[369][370] In Talk:Right-wing authoritarian personality, they also accused Wikipedia (which they described as a "God-awful website") of being "full of left-wing authoritarian authors",[371] in an edit that has also been reverted.[372]

I'm reporting this as an outside party, uninvolved in any of the above-mentioned disputed articles, and to me this appears to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Grnrchst (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I do see that they haven't edited, except for one edit on their talk page, since July 7th. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They just reverted my ANI notice, so I hope they're willing to address my concerns. I will be more than happy to close this if they do. Grnrchst (talk) 15:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So, Awl has made some slightly pointy edits that were reverted, probably by left wing authoritarian authors like me, yes? So what? - Roxy the English speaking dog 14:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Does this not indicate an intention to continue disruptively editing? I just noticed a number of repeated reverted edits following a series of warnings, and figured that was worth bringing up here. Apologies if this was a premature report. Grnrchst (talk) 14:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Unless they straighten up and fly right they wont get too far here imho, but perhaps I'm being a little hard on you. I'll stop now. - Roxy the English speaking dog 15:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's fine, I don't think you're being too hard on me. I want to make sure I'm doing right by Wiki policy. Grnrchst (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

They haven’t edited substantively since 7 July so perhaps the warnings had the desired impact. The issues are three weeks old and rather stale now, we only need to pick this up again if they resume their disruptive behaviour. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I was startled to read that Jack Offer was born in Hampton Wick - but the citation looks sound, and this seems to be nothing more than a sniggerworthy coincidence. Narky Blert (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I became aware of this user when I repeatedly saw the page Koeri show up in the Pending Changes log multiple times for what seemed to be the same edit. Upon further investigation, I found that the new user User:Aman9750 repeatedly attempted to change Shudra into Vaishya, which this edit appears to be political/religious in nature. User had made the same edit 3 times, each one of which was reverted:

• [373] reverted by User:Gardenkur
• [374] reverted by User:CycloneYoris
• [375] reverted by User:Fylindfotberserk

User then attempted the same edit 3 additional times, each of which were reverted by myself ([376], [377], and [378]). Following the second edit, user was notified on their talk page [379]. User made the same edit again, which I left a WP:3RR warning on their page. After the thrid edit, an additional discussion was opened on Talk:Koeri. This topic (Shudra into Vaishya) was already discussed Ad nauseam on the talk page, but I did not want to escalate the issue for a new account with only 7 edits. User then continued to make the same edit:

• [380] reverted by User:Fragrant Peony
• [381] reverted by User:Admantine123
• And a rather questionable edit [382]

I am afraid that WP:NOTHERE, WP:3RR, and maybe even WP:CIR may be applicable to this situation. The User's responses on Talk:Koeri and User talk:Aman9750 do not fill me with the hope that this user is here for constructive purposes. @Admantine123: here is a customary ping since you have been involved. Etriusus (Talk) 15:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked Aman9750 for 31 hours for edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a WP:CIR issue, they don't even know, how to cite source, and other basic things about Wikipedia. A 31 hr block is suitable here, i have tried to explain them about the editing process.-Admantine123 (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This edit summary [387] looks like a legal threat to me. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Sure looks like one to me too. Blocked. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The IP has now placed an inapplicable block notice on their own talk page (copyvio, as opposed to vandalism and legal threats), and an unblock request as though they had been blocked for copyvio, which they were not. I'm not sure if this sort of gamesmanship is the modus operandi for any specific LTA, but it does suggest they've been through the blocking process a few times. Perhaps talk page access needs to be revoked as well. PohranicniStraze (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think I've seen that one before. ("That" as in that tactic, at least; I've probably seen this person before, although LTAs of this kind all blur together.) TPA revoked. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's just a kid who thinks that's how the adult world works. Acroterion (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Jesse Cox (YouTuber) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to be breaking news, and is now largely--or only--sourced to tweets. Bringing this here rather than the BLP board because of the nature of the accusations. I don't think we're invested in covering the latest Twitter wars. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

My findings have been posted at Talk:Jesse_Cox_(YouTuber); but the TLDR is that a source covers it and verified twitter accounts are involved. InvadingInvader (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - Whatever happens on the article, there's at least two editors that have gone well over 3RR on the article (6RR by my count), and the edits being reverted are not vandalism as it's a content dispute. I think the involved editors should cool down and take a step back and use the talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some blocks have been handed out and the page semi-protected. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• Acknowledging that I have a tenuous connection to one of the BLP subjects here, and thus won't be taking any admin action beyond the straighforward NLT block I made of MathasGames... @Crboyer and, when your block expires, Yoshi24517: could you please explain why you thought this was an appropriate situation in which to revert (at all, let alone past 3RR), and whether you think that decision is compatible with the judgment expected of a rollbacker? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The content in question has been restored post page-protection, without further discussion either here or at the article talk page. The concerns re: WP:BLP and WP:RECENTISM haven't changed, they've just been ignored. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Yoshi has replied:

      Absolutely, I can answer that. Keep in mind I do not do content creation or any of that stuff with BLP guidelines or any of that sort, so feel free to explain that to me. Also keep in mind, I’m all new to this explain yourself for actions thing, so don’t get too disappointed. It all started when I was using Huggle, minding my business, and then I come across the article, and I saw a bunch of reverted, unexplained deletion with the words “libelious”. I saw other editors reverting it as well, so I decided to revert it as well. Then it kept getting reverted and it kept going on and on, and well you get the idea. Then I saw other users and editors trying to get rid of it as well, so I suspected meatpuppeting was going on, and of course, we usually don’t like that, so I kept reverting. Then I found out about libel and BLP guidelines, and all that stuff, and I decided to use the talk page, and it all went downhill from there and got blocked.

      I'm sure different people will take different things from that statement. My main takeaway is, maybe we need to have a bigger discussion about recent change patrollers' understanding of WP:BLP and WP:RS, because I think it's unfair to put it on any one person... or three people. And it's not just these three people. I am gonna go make sure everyone's AWARE of WP:NEWBLPBAN, though. And going to ask Jon698 to come comment here and answer the non-rollback-oriented half of my above question. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • To follow on that: I came across the article while the warring was in full bloom. I, too, saw the edit summaries that included accusations of 'libel,' to which my knee-jerk reaction is the same as that of most experienced editors. Then I scanned the content in question, and realized immediately that it's possible for a disruptive editor, who may even be using multiple accounts, to be right about a WP:BLP issue. It only took a few seconds to reach this conclusion; it's beyond my ken that experienced page patrollers can see content containing controversial accusations, freshly made and sourced to Twitter (!), and edit war to restore it. I'm not blaming anyone, just a bit surprised at what a slog this has become, and how even users who must know better are vulnerable to what is, essentially, he said/he said crap. We're not running a tabloid. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
        • "Immediately"--indeed. The others should have done at least some kind of diligence. Drmies (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • By the way, in the event that the plagiarism accusation is resolved or proves unwarranted, my first thought is that the whole damn thing will need to be redacted. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
• I am baffled that four apparently seasoned editors, Crboyer, Jon698, Yoshi24517, and InvadingInvader, simply restore a bunch of gossip sourced to YouTube and Twitter.

  So Yoshi got blocked for edit warring, and correctly so. They seemed to simply have joined in with the revert war, judging from the comment quoted here; ignorance of the BLP is a lousy excuse, and another comment of theirs was puzzling too: "Regarding what the IP said, I would recommend that you NOT ping admins for a content dispute, as that could be see as canvassing"--no, in an edit war over a BLP with libel accusations pinging an admin is exactly what you should do; simply reverting is the last thing one should do.

  But Jon introduced part of the section and edit-warred over it, which lacked secondary sources and strikes me as a flagrant BLP violation.

  InvadingInvader condescendingly told the IP to "bring it up on the talk page" when they were confronted with their BLP violation, and hasn't shown up here.

  Crboyer has been here longer than me, and restored the content three times, plenty for an edit warring block--they asked for semi-protection, saying "repeated content removal for no other reason than 'libel'", but if you go through all that trouble someone with their experience should have actually looked at the content first.

  This is all really disconcerting. I have removed the rollback flag from Crboyer and Yoshi. They are welcome to re-apply for it, and when they do I suggest they show they understand why this was so troubling. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  • "But Jon introduced part of the section and edit-warred over it" I made a grand total of two reverts to the page. The second one was due to me not knowing about the talk page discussion. I also removed a large amount of unsourced material or added citations to it. Jon698 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • You reinstated that BLP violating "only two times"? That looks minor only in the light of others having restored it six times. And you did introduce it in the first place. Drmies (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • My first reaction upon seeing those "libelous Content" edits was a knee-jerk reaction thinking the user was removing sourced Content they disagreed with. My biggest mistake was running with that reaction and not giving the benefit of the doubt. I'll accept this judgment. $chnauzer 21:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: - Crboyer actually re-added the content six times, but I can't provide diffs because they've been revdel'd (they're right at the top of his recent contribs though). I'm not sure why Yoshi24517 was blocked for his six reverts but Crboyer wasn't blocked for his six reverts. Six reverts over about 10 minutes while slapping vandalism templates on user talk pages when the edits weren't vandalism isn't a great way to deal with content you're trying to reinsert into the article, BLP violations or not. - Aoidh (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The opinion at the talk page that we leave it up, since secondary sources would probably confirm it soon, was incredible and irresponsible. I'm not finding any coverage of this by WP:RELIABLE sources. Thank you for redacting, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 3) @Drmies: InvadingInvader did reply briefly above—I'd also read past it when I wrote my first comment—but if anything their response is more alarming than none at all, since a source covers it and verified twitter accounts are involved is the kind of explanation I expect from a newbie. I've given them a BLP DS alert too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Tamzin, you are right, and I saw that after my third edit conflict, haha. And I saw you placed the BLP note--thank you. I think all this shows how important it is for "vandalism fighters" to actually have some good sense, and knowledge of other aspects of the project. No you can't place such accusations in article space without proper secondary sourcing. Yes you have to be careful. No you cannot, as an impulse or a reflex, hit rollback whenever you see an alarming word. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Over time I realized this was a scandalous thing to get into. My story of getting involved in this very similar to Crboyer and Yoshi's; the more research I did into it, the more stupid it was, and I ultimately decided this morning to just pull away from this. It's better off not on here unless a secondary source covers this. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
    • I personally think that part of the impulsiveness that got to me during my reverts did have something to do with the personal attacks and legal threats that were thrown at the project. I'm paying particular attention to Osirilen's "crazy guy ax to grind" comment and Mathas's legal threats. InvadingInvader (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
      • InvadingInvader, dealing with...well, people who throw such language around is not easy, and I understand the frustration. I have run into many such editors, besides many trolls, racists, antisemites, sexists, and homophobes, and it can be hard. The thing to do, and it is not always easy to do this, is to focus on the actual edit. This is why you will find editors like Cullen328 sometimes finding editors/edits we vehemently disagree with--because we are having to enforce the rules/policies/guidelines rather than figuring out who we like or what we like. And when one is attacked personally, that's obviously even harder. All I can say is that we need to try and focus on the material at hand. I appreciate your note here.

        I'll add one more thing, for the vandal fighters who might be watching. The longer I'm here, the more I believe we should revert less and report more. In this case, the removal was correct, but if any of the reverters had not reverted and reported the matter, we wouldn't have a page full, fifty edits, in the history that needed reverting, scrutinizing, rev-deleting. This is one of the dangers of rollback, but I realize I'm riding my hobby horse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Drmies (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Since I was released from my edit warring block early, I would like to take the time to read over what I saw, and take some time to give some more thoughts on the situation. Drmies's removal of my RBK flag was correct: I did not read through the edits as I should have, and reverted 6 times. Huggle even says "verify every edit you make". That I did not do. After talking with 2-3 admins on my talk page, as well as one in PMs on IRC, I have a better grasp of what transpired yesterday. Like Drmies said, I can request it back once I feel like I understand what happened here, and for it not to happen again, but I plan to wait a short bit before doing so, to cool off, and to move around to other parts of the project I can help out with. I'm pulling out of this debacle all together, to me, its just not something I really need to continue with. I would like to thank the IP editor who brought it here, as well as every one else who has talked to me, you have all been a big help. I fully understand what has happened, and I hope I do not get dragged here in the future. Thank you. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 03:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

User user:24.170.226.22 has made multiple destructive edits to Wikipedia. Amdins please look into their contributions and take actions.Uricdivine (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've given them a last warning. Let's see where it goes. Not holding my breath, but they are actually trying in good faith, just doing a poor job of it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked them for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Anlyam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) speaking a lot of profanity and bad manners. First edited with IPs 189.45.119.50 and 191.247.20.98 and now created account, perhaps trying to bypass R3R. 2804:14D:5C87:8C5D:B031:19B9:8953:726 (talk) 08:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Shirt58 blocked him from that one article for 31 hours. That's probably a bit more generous than I was going to do but maybe it will work and they will get the message. If they continue, longer blocks can be applied. I didn't see profanity so much as highly disruptive and corrosive editing, but they only have a handful of edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

User talk:MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers: "If you do not make adjustments, I will plead my case on Medium.com and Twitter. The article will include your name since you are the only one responding to messages." Threats of this kind have no place on Wikipedia, right? Robby.is.on (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller who has addressed the issue, right below that posting on that user's page, is both an Admin and a member of Oversight. I think the correct eyes are already on this threat. And as Doug has noted, if they carry out their threat, they will be blocked on Wikipedia. We have no control over what somebody does on another site, but we can clamp down on it at Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

MoreIntelligentThanAllFactCheckers (talk · contribs) has now been blocked by Daniel Case for being WP:NOTHERE. I have a slight suspicion that they also engaged in socking, but I'm not the one to file an SPI. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 09:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

IP user 125.137.205.234 appears to have made a legal threat at Talk:BTDigg - "WELL... ALL .. I.D.s HERE WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE AUTHORITIES

YOU CAN EXPLAIN TO THEM.. WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE IN JAIL... WHILE THEY SCAN YOUR HARDDRIVES...". PohranicniStraze (talk) 14:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Appears to have been blocked for 3 months. And the threat has been redacted.♘ME_isSCAMMER 15:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Historylikeyou (talk · contribs)

A newbie with exactly 17 previous edits made major undiscussed/non-consensus changes to MOS:BIO [388], and since then has been mass-deleting certain postnominals from British biographies. I've reverted the ones up to this minute, and left a warning, but he may continue. Could people watch him, especially British editors? Thank you. Please block or final-warn if he continues. Softlavender (talk) 23:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It would have been better if you had invited other editors to give their opinions on my proposed changes. Is there somewhere else to ask for feedback? Historylikeyou (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever edited under a previous username? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

So you are now telling an experienced editor who has made over 80,000 edits and been here over 15 years what "It would have been better" to do? Don't remove postnominals without WP:CONSENSUS. Please read that guideline on consensus. Never remove cited information from any Wikipedia article (whether cited in the lead or cited in the body text). Start a thread on the talkpage of the article and get consensus first. Softlavender (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, because I made a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia, after posting on the policy talk page and waiting for feedback. You may have done the right thing in reverting my edits and waiting for further feedback from other editors, but the way you have responded to me is, frankly, atrocious. Rather than encouraging discussion of my proposals, you have immediately threatened me with a block and encouraged Wikipedia administrators to do the same. I don't care about how experienced you are on Wikipedia; this is obviously a bad way to respond to newer editors. And I did not deliberately remove any cited information from any articles. Historylikeyou (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You changed MOS:BIO without any consensus at all, much less "waiting for feedback" [389]. I don't have to "wait for further feedback from other editors" to revert non-consensus removals of cited or well-established postnominals. I have indeed encouraged you to discuss and get consensus, both on your talk page [390], in edit my summary [391], and in this ANI thread. I did not at all "immediately threaten [you] with a block". That said, unless you learn to follow protocol, your days on Wikipedia will be numbered. Softlavender (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I did look at the guidance for editing policies and according to WP:PGBOLD, it's allowed to edit them. I don't think I've done anything to warrant speaking to me in such an accusatory and threatening tone. I've already said I'm not going to reinstate my changes without further discussion. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Care to answer my question? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I think we all know the answer to that. {{checkuser needed}} Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown If you had a specific account that you suspect was the sockmaster, that would be relatively easy to check. But without knowing who to compare against, there's not a whole lot CU can do. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This is more of a "seems like a sock of someone" situation based on behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

What about a topic ban? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC).

Whilst I think that the actions of Softlavender were appropriate my understanding is that the place to hold a discussion before making a change to such a core component of Wikipedia like MOS:BIO like the one that you want would be the Village Pump (WP:VILLAGEPUMP). Whilst waiting to get consensus you shouldn't make the change to remove the postnomials. Gusfriend (talk) 11:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have posted at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Manual_of_Style_-_Postnominals_in_Biographies. Historylikeyou (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Paulistafan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Barron Trump Knauss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Barron W. Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Barron Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron Trump (2nd nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barron William Trump

Barron Trump is 16 years old and considered a minor, and has been found not to be individually notable in three deletion discussions, and the title has been redirected to Family of Donald Trump. The applicable guideline is biographies of minors.

Paulistafan has attempted to game the name to create a stand-alone article using two different names, where the second is one by which Barron Trump has never been known. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Gaming the system indeed. I have topic banned the user from BLP's. They may still edit the talkpages, and of course appeal the ban. Depending on their attitude, it may be appropriate to narrow the ban in some way. Bishonen | tålk 16:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC).

Not sure what to do about this, if anything, found while cleaning up List of museums in North Texas. On that list is Rooming House Museum in Dallas. But if you click on it, it directs to Lee Harvey Oswald Rooming House, which is not a museum. The creator is listed as User:Timcdfw, which in itself is a redirect to Joseph L. Bennett. Under "External links" there, is a link to "Oswald Rooming House Museum", which points to some kind of tour. The Timcdfw user account has made 473 edits since 2013. Their most recent edits were a 2021 Draft:Alyne Harris . So they haven't exactly stopped editing, it's an odd pattern. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Im still around....:) not sure the question? 70.119.178.242 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Re: the rooming house.... the tours have ceased since the house was resold to a private indivdual... if we need to remove that external link we can 70.119.178.242 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad I pinged you about this. The entire list of museums in North Texas has been tagged generally for, among other things, for looking like advertising. I think the Oswald ones ought to be renamed, but I'm not sure what. Also, most people don't redirect their user page to an article. — Maile (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

They wrote the Joseph L. Bennett article on their user page, moved it to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Timcdfw from where it was moved to Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Joseph Bennett, then finally to Joseph L. Bennett. A bot 'fixed' the redirect left on the user page to point to the article. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Re the Rooming House: if it’s no longer a museum, it can just be removed from the list. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your quick responses and help. I think we can close this thread out now.— Maile (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Cabin134 is currently disregarding talk page notes and edit summary notes from myself and Hey man im josh, as a way to “win” an ongoing AfD discussion on the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. This user has blanked an article 3 times amid an AfD discussion which they started.[397][398][399] I also received talk page message from this user saying “It seems that most editors don´t agree with you don't worry though we moved most of the text to July 2022 United States floods”, which is also confusing seeing how they are the AfD nominator and it appears the current consensus is keep. I have sent 3 different messages to this user on his talk page about not blanking/redirecting an article that is currently in an AfD, especially one they started.[400][401][402]. I even dropped a helpful message after the first one explaining and linking some policy/essays as to why the AfD needs to just finish after 7 days.[403] There is also a whole controversy section about how the AfD started visible on Talk:July 2022 United States floods#Kentucky. An administrator needs to step in and do at the very least a warning about blanking/redirecting a page during an AfD since this is out of hand now. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Elijahandskip, you have take this way to far it has to stop I need to let pepole know if in the article July 2022 United States floods we sould include Kentucky and Vrigina information from 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. Cabin134 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, there is a move discussion in progress (Talk:July 2022 United States floods#Requested move 29 July 2022) to move it back to 2022 Missouri floods. I came here because of the disregard for talk page alerts about blanking the article amid the AfD. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Cabin134, have you been paying attention to what people are saying to you? You cannot change the article to a redirect when there is an ongoing deletion discussion (that you started). You need to let the deletion discussion play out.

Also, I highly encourage you to read WP:Vandalism and to not accuse others of it during a content dispute, or tell users they'll be blocked if they revert your edit. Especially considering Elihajandskip's edits were definitely not vandalism. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: After this discussion began, Cabin134 is continuing to revert edits on July 2022 United States floods to merge the pages together.[404] Elijahandskip (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #2: Just discovered Cabin134 reached out to User:HurricaneCovid and accused me of vandalism. Still noting the message on Cabin134’s talk page seem to be unrecognized. I also received a 2nd talk page message from Cabin134[405] accusing me of vandalism. Once again, talk page alerts seem to be unrecognized and it now appears this discussion is also being unrecognized. I am feeling like a block may be needed, since a warning will probably be treated the same as all the alerts/discussions. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Note to admins: This isn’t the first time Elijahandskip has taken to AIV or AN/I when another editor doesn’t agree with him. It should be noted that in order to ensure a comprehensive article on this subject, the method employed by Cabin134 is the preferred alternative. United States Man (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait, just confirming you agree that redirecting/blanking an ongoing AfD discussion without proper closure is ok? Hmmm Elijahandskip (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that everyone, including you, seems to want these pages merged, so just do it. United States Man (talk) 17:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The article issue is not the reason this ANI was opened. More over the vandalism accusations and disregard to talk page message about proper closures. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said to you on other page but for the record here, when you have fresh events, it generally is easier on everyone to let the temporary editors do their thing and just clean up later. Having all these move discussions and AN/I discussions could all be avoided with patience. Cabin134 is in the wrong, but it could all be solved easily in a few days without all of this. United States Man (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing "everyone, including you" wants these pages merged? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a strange note to add when you yourself stated that Cabin134 is clearly in the wrong and being disruptive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

As I said, that doesn’t mean you have to run straight to AN/I suddenly when all sides seem to want the same outcome as far as content goes. Regardless of Cabin134, I think Elijahandskip could benefit from being patient in the future. United States Man (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly, but in this instance OP isn't in the wrong. Cabin134 is clearly being disruptive and trying to canvass for support while not listening to those giving them feedback. They took the right route in coming to ANI. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #3: Cabin134 has once again vandalized the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods by blanking the page amid an ongoing AfD discussion[406]. Numerous talk page messages, numerous editors and this discussion have taken place telling them not do to that. They are a confirmed troll and vandal, so we need an admin to block them. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Update #4: Cabin134 has now asked User:WikiDan61 via his talk page to block me[407]. I don't understand why they will not just read the messages we are sending, but either way, they are canvassing and not listening, so time to block or warn. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've p-blocked 31 hours from the article for edit-warring, but E&S, honestly, learn what vandalism and trolling is. I literally am second-guessing myself because of your language and approach here. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I guess they were not directly vandalizing/trolling, but instead were ignoring policy. That would be the better terminology to use. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:20, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Withdrawning AN/I. The whole main issue stemmed from this user merging without linking to a source, then not responding to "provide a source" requests. They just responded to my question (after the partial block was put in place) which shows it was not WP:OR. All that problem just because a simple question wasn't being answered, which then caused a cascade effect, even to the point of a partial block having to be put in place. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Dear administrators,

I am a research fellow for the LaGuardia & Wagner Archives. The LaGuardia & Wagner Archives is a New York City Archive established in 1982 to collect, preserve, and make available primary materials documenting the social and political history of New York City, with an emphasis on the mayoralty and the borough of Queens. The Archives serves researchers, journalists, students, scholars, exhibit planners, and policymakers examining the history of Greater New York. The Archives also produces public programs exploring that history. Its website provides a web database of collections, including more than 100,000 digitized photos and nearly 2.5 million documents.

The recent work I have contributed to Wikipedia is information directly from the archives. The current exhibit is "A Seat At The Table." : LGBTQIA Representation in New York Politics examines the personal lives and political experiences of New York City LGBTQIA elected officials in the City Council and State Legislature from the 1990s to the present. Because the exhibits focus on personal lives, this is the section of NYC politicians I have contributed the most, using the words of the politicians directly in interviews as their experiences were personal and contributed to a large majority of their political activism and work. Stephen Petrus conducted the interview, and he is a historian at the LaGuardia & Wagner Archives. The interview was uploaded on YouTube as a platform to access an archived source. You can see the verifiability if you watch any of the NYC politicians' interviews conducted by the archives.

The point of these contributions is the additional information regarding these politicians' personal lives that may not be found elsewhere, especially when these interviews are primary sources. However, a user by the name of JesseRafe has accused me of "spamming" and directly said "Spamming links to this same source on multiple NYC politician's pages is unusual behavior" when I am using primary sources (interviews) that come from the archives.

In addition, Mr. Jesse Rafe has falsely accused YouTube as being an unreliable source, when the interview was conducted by historian Stephen Petrus, directly interviewing these politicians and the archives are a credible source only using YouTube as a platform to upload their interviews.

If there is a way please give me back my contributions and block this user. This user has deleted everything under a misunderstanding of not knowing the archives Is a reputable source and further researching the sources. I would greatly appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JCKitKat (talk • contribs) 23:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@JesseRafe, what are you doing? Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

While I can respect the intent behind adding Wagner and Laguardia Archives, looking at Glick and Quinn - there are "better" secondary sources (such as NYT) that cover the same material and do not require Wikipedia to rely on Primary sourced interviews hosted on YouTube. With that said, WP:ABOUTSELF does provide some allowance for the interviews. Regardless coming here and asking for a block over misunderstanding is a bit of an extreme position given your complete lack of any attempt to discuss the issue with JesseRafe. So you may want to use his talk page or one of the articles to discuss these edits, rather than just demanding restoration. See WP:BRD for the prefered cycle of editing. Slywriter (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The OP did post several lengthy messages to User talk:JesseRafe to attempt to discuss the issue. They just didn't wait for an answer before posting here (JR hasn't edited in hours so likely hasn't seen the OP's messages). Schazjmd (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Schazjmd, discussion is a generous term for an attack post that includes "I was shocked when I saw all of your contributions contribute to censoring users and editing in an unhumanitarian way. In other words, criticism failed to be constructive and was only written to demean other people's contributions to the Wikipedia community. I notice many users were victims of you undoing their works..." Along with several other unkind attacks directed at JR. Slywriter (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

OP has had an account for a little over a month and made 35 edits. I imagine that they are not familiar with our alphabet soup and large body of arcane best practices for dispute resolution. But even I would be a little pissed off if I added twenty-some citations to articles and had them all blanket-reverted by someone who called me a SPA COI in their edit summaries -- perhaps we can spare them a little understanding. jp×g 04:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That said, this is a little bizarre:

I realize I don't need to do anything because you already have a mass amount of people who are strongly against what you are doing. I don't particularly appreciate spreading hate. Rather I know that people who do unkindly things will learn the hard way, and it is not my place to do anything. Your reputation on Wikipedia has already ruined your image, whether you like it or not, and if I don't do anything, I know someone else will or already has. My last message is simply that I'm disappointed in you and the people Wikipedia appoints as peer reviewers who are not doing their job in an appropriate, helpful manner that makes Wikipedia's community welcoming.[408]

@JCKitKat: Under no circumstances should you ever be leaving, uh, whatever this is, on people's talk pages. jp×g 04:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok I do apologize for writing that, I was frustrated one evening when I logged in and saw these accusations. JCKitKat (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A few comments for JCKitKat that might help:

• If you are posting on a talk page you should start new topics at the bottom of the page and sign your post with ~~~~ so that people can see who posted it and it doesn't merge into other text and get missed.
• Given your association with LaGuardia & Wagner Archives adding references to resources created or hosted by them to articles may be a Conflict of Interest so I suggest that:
  • Read the Conflict of Interest policy at WP:COI
  • You should disclose the COI on your user page (see WP:DISCLOSE)
  • When you want to add a reference using the L&W Archives it is best practice to propose changes on talk pages (by using the {{request edit}} template), or by posting a note at the COI noticeboard, so that they can be peer reviewed
• You can ask for help at any time at the Wikipedia:Teahouse Gusfriend (talk) 06:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• WP:AGF is still a thing so let's assume good faith. Here is someone new to Wikipedia who wants to help improve the encyclopedia with some unique material who has got a bit frustrated. Some guidance is needed and perhaps some discussion on how best to use this material. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 06:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  I definitely agree with this. Gusfriend (talk) 06:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your message, I was not aware that it was a conflict of interest. The people I'm working on it together for a college project never told me and I assumed I would have no problems citing it as a main source, at least I know nows so thank you for bringing it to my attention. And about the YouTube part I'm confused, is it against policy to cite YouTube as a source, regardless if it is from a primary source or reputable source that uses YouTube as a channel? If you could clarify this that would be great, that's all I want to know at least. JCKitKat (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  • • • You were politely notified you had a conflict of interest on your talk page (as well as in edit summaries) before you launched that malformatted personal attack on my talk page and before this lengthy post that also is largely personal attacks. To claim ignorance of the conflict of interest until this afternoon is pushing the assumption of good faith to its limit. JesseRafe (talk) 16:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

        "To claim ignorance" To be fair I am new to wikipedia so I assumed you were one of those users who deletes others work on purpose so I did not take your claim seriously unless I heard it from administration. At least I admit when I'm wrong, you have still continued to claim you are right 100% of the time and won't work with me or others who have reported you to the higher ups. You can see below my post I did apologize for some errors so you can't accuse me of the same things anymore, now I think you should do your part Mr. JesseRafe. JCKitKat (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

        Aside from mine I feel bad for everyone's work who got deleted because of nitpicking peer reviewers who dictate their opinions as policy, what is a fact and opinion has become immensely blurred. I hope Wikipedia does something about this because it's not Wikipedia anymore it's plain bureaucracy.. Also once someone apologizes for errors, you can't attack them for it anymore and ignore yours, this is 50/50, I messed up and so did you so why not own up to it. JCKitKat (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

from the accused I did assume good faith. You'll notice these edits occurred over a period of time, and the user was undeterred by previous explanations that this was not welcome content. They kept adding the same COI (by their own admission) content making them an unambiguous SPA. I have all most all of these articles on my watchlist, in fact I started some of them, so I saw they kept doing it after prior removals with explanation, that's when I looked into their contributions and saw they also spammed the Youtube links and wrote more less-than-ideal tone expanded bios on other NYC pols' pages I wasn't watching. They are spamming a non-notable source, just calling it reliable does not make it so, especially if they're involved with it. Especially as I stated early on, it's easy enough to get print not video third-party not first-party sources for the same content, and to write the content in a more encyclopedic tone. Instead they wrote that screed on my user talk, and I really don't think that's OK and should be allowed. JesseRafe (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes they occurred over a period of time, that's the point. A college with archives ( which many colleges have) isn't a COIL or a company of business scheme. I do plan on contributing way more to Wikipedia using the archives as a source after I'm done with the seat at the table (politicians) exhibit so that's the only reason why it appears to be SPA and occurred over a period of time. You are RIGHT about tone, that can DEFINETLY be improved with revisions but I don't think legitimate information about these politicians personal life obtained from interviews should be deleted and written off as "vandalism" which is deliberately having malicious intentions, you did say I was in good faith so using the term vandalism doesn't apply here maybe I can work on tone but that's the only thing I thing you got right. Also yes the archives aren't NBC they arent' super well-known you are RIGHT, but I don't think that makes it any less then any other source, I mean they are still recent interviews at the end of the day and as Malcolmxl5 said there is nothing wrong with wanting to improve Wikipedia with unique material. If there is a policy against using interviews and an archives database please link me to it, otherwise I think you are biased as well, which is that you don't believe a college archive is a "legitimate" source, as you said. But aside from me, I think many people would disagree, it it just not fair to write a college archive off as source that's not reputable, doing so is just ignoring the important work the historians are doing and I think we should respect their work and from what I understand Wikipedia is welcoming to primary sources. Also I apologize for the later comment on user talk, I logged in on wikipedia one evening and when I saw the contributions were gone I was frustrated and genuinely believed it was a misunderstanding and I wanted to stand up for myself, I think all wikipedia users know if they don't speak up peer reviewers can easily exercise control over their contributions, wikipedia users and peer reviewers aren't perfect, either of them could make mistakes. The bureaucracy on Wikipedia has became a lot lately, I apologized for my mistakes and I hope you can admit to yours at the very least if you don't want to give my contributions back. Good day. JCKitKat (talk) 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

JCKitkat, you just renamed this thread to make it even more accusatory, so it seems your goal is drama not improving the encyclopedia. Yes, we do have policies that prefer WP:SECONDARY reliable sources over WP:PRIMARY sources especially with biographies. We also have an essay WP:ACADEME that explains Wikipedia can be a challenging place for researchers, subject matter experts and the like to navigate as we have our own rules and standards. Slywriter (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that give my contributions back isn't a thing on Wikipedia and, to be honest, after the elapsed time reverting their reverts may introduce new problems due to possible changes since then. But there is nothing stopping you from reintroducing your edits although after your changes were reverted you are advised to follow the principles of WP:BRD.

Having said all of that I also wanted to warn you that if you want avoid having your edits reverted you should follow the COI related instructions above and request edits on the talk pages rather than adding L&W Archives links directly.

Gusfriend (talk) 00:48, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, after getting into a dispute with User:JesseRafe about Brooklyn Technical High School, the user is now removing any edits I make to Wikipedia such as the ones I made on ramen. The user has not offered any explanation for these removals (except for the initial removals on the page about Brooklyn Technical High School) and they do not appear to have been made in good faith. Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Seek consensus on the talk page, it is not OR, it's a plain meaning of the word, your source is BS, stop spamming it"--that's an explanation. Drmies (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

While I stand by my assessment that the claims made by User:JesseRafe violate Wikipedia's policy on original research, this notice is mostly in regards to the removals he made on the ramen page. Also, while the user asserts that any disputes about Brooklyn Technical High School should be discussed on its talk page, he doesn't seem at all interested in discussing these disputes there. I waited 5 days for him to respond to my post on the Brooklyn Technical High School talk page before proceeding to edit the Brooklyn Technical High School article page as I found appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nezahaulcoyotl (talk • contribs) 03:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In the case of the ramen page, it has only been reverted once without any subsequent discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just not true, user has several edits that are still tagged "current" from the same time period that I obviously did not undue, so off the jump their accusation is false. I only have Brooklyn Tech on my watchlist, and after the second time this user insisted their completely irrelevant "source" was the dispositive authority on magnet schools in nyc (I admit, it is a convincing URL "magnetschools.nyc"! Something something books by their covers) I looked at their contributions to see if they also did this to the other Specialized High Schools of New York City and yes, they did, so I undid all of those edits on those pages for the same reason. They seem to only edit about once a week, so when they came back to unhelpfully edit the Brooklyn Tech article by removing the wikilink again, I again checked to see it if they did so to the other HSs. They hadn't, but I did see they made an edit to remove sources and upon looking it over, it seemed they did so improperly. I didn't want to accuse them of anti-Chinese bias in their removal of sourced content in the ramen article, so I merely called it vandalism and moved on. I have no interest in communicating with them on the Brooklyn Tech talk page about that silly website and the phone number that you can supposedly call. As I stated prior, that website is not affiliated with the City of New York or the Department of Education, but I also have no obligation to participate in the talk page discussion, they ought to build consensus and they have not, if other users participate there, then I might. JesseRafe (talk) 14:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, can an administrator at least clarify as to whether or not attempting to categorize Brooklyn Tech High School based on the descriptions of school categories provided by another Wikipedia article violates this website's policy on original research? Nezahaulcoyotl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I suggest following WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, as there is currently no consensus at Talk:Brooklyn Technical High School#Magnet School Status.—Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Andrewbf/Archive

User:Andrewbf was blocked indefinitely seven years ago. This action did not stop his Wikipedia contributions; he has been using a variety of Mexico IPs to evade his block. The article Personal life of Lindsay Lohan was protected earlier this month by Favonian because of these IPs. More edit-warring can be seen in the Love Come Down article history. Is there a way to block the IPs with minimal collateral damage? Recently active IPs listed below. The listed IPs might be considered as four ranges: Special:Contributions/187.147.192.0/18, Special:Contributions/189.172.0.0/18, Special:Contributions/189.174.0.0/18 and Special:Contributions/200.68.160.0/22. Not only IP4s have been used by Andrewbf; last year the IP6 range Special:Contributions/2806:2F0:8020:310A:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked for three months. Binksternet (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

lnvolved IPs

• ‎187.147.200.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.207.33 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.212.97 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 187.147.236.151 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.23.242 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.25.229 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.33.230 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.38.3 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.49.152 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.72.145 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.91.34 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.172.118.215 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.6.243 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.9.87 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.17.233 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.19.198 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.21.221 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 189.174.48.58 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 200.68.161.254 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 200.68.161.68 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

• This user has some unhealthy obsessions. Various blocks placed. Thanks Binksternet. Drmies (talk) 16:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Big thanks! We're done here until next time. Binksternet (talk) 02:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

In secularism, after I added an image, the citations spitted out this error: "Lua error in Module:Citation/CS1 at line 1392: bad argument #1 to 'pairs' (table expected, got nil)." I then previewed an older version before my edits and the error still persists. Does anyone here have a clue at what's going on? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It seems to also happen at other pages too. Seems like this is a FUBAR-level situation. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Image for what I'm seeing: CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You needn't keep updating this. This is a widespread issue that's been noted by many. Have patience. GabberFlasted (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:Village stocks it goes :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

To prevent this from happening in the future, is there a thing like sandboxes and test cases for modules? weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• This would probably be better reported at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This is worse than deleting the main page, it may be only an admin can fix this, so this is a great place to note this problem affecting references across the pedia. Undo the last edit?-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fixed now with this revert. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, apparently some readers/editors may need to WP:PURGE, if the are still seeing it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Finally, this userbox makes sense

This user has totally not destroyed Wikipedia.

— rsjaffe 🗣️ 13:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Uhh, I don't think this is worse than deleting the main page -- both can be reversed by an admin. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 17:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep. In reality, it appears that Wikipedia is put together in such a way, and versions so carefully tracked on a granular basis, that it is extremely difficult to cause lasting harm. knock on wood — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

IP socking starting back up on the talk page[edit]

IP socks of Dnywlsh are starting back up with the personal attacks and trolling on Talk:5G NR frequency bands. This is obvious evasion of the block on Dnywlsh and socks as well as the recent block on 73.128.151.200 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) - MrOllie (talk) 16:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As a reminder, the previous investigation was closed, with the admins finding that none of the accounts or IPs being accused were socks. You appear to have a history of falsely accusing accounts of being socks. In any case, this isn't the correct place to open a sockpuppet investigation. 2601:152:300:36FF:10D9:AF7A:9EAD:8DA5 (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This is just false. MrOllie (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Click the link. The investigation was closed by admins, with them confirming that none of the accused accounts were socks. This is not the correct place to open a sockpuppet investigation. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is the place for that. 2601:152:300:36FF:10D9:AF7A:9EAD:8DA5 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what the SPI concluded. It concluded they couldn't make a technical connection because the data was stale, so it would have to be determined by behavioral evidence. You claim here here is so obviously false, I'm forced to think you are making it in bad faith. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, someone beat me to blocking you. Oh well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Just for clarification, there could never be any public connection involving the IPs based on technical evidence per the WMF's privacy policy, behavioural evidence is the only way publicly. One of the IP's was blocked for other reasons and after that I don't think it was felt particularly important to decide if they were a sock so it wasn't considered further. Nil Einne (talk) 12:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Serial plagiarism[edit]

Will someone take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#TheLastOfTheGiants and make a decision? The case seems beyond ludicrous. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The notice at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys indicates that the page has been superseded by Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations, so I recommend filing a case request at CCI if you think a contribution survey is needed. While I'm here, I should note that I removed a significant 5.5k addition of copyvio earlier this month from the History of Romania article that had been added by TheLastOfTheGiants, and they were warned twice more on their talk page about unattributed copying within Wikipedia – all of those went without acknowledgement – so I'm concerned by recent statements like "What is the issue with it being a copy from the Origin of the Romanians?" [409] (more unattributed copying). DanCherek (talk) 14:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

If I understood correctly, copying from within Wikipedia is allowed and does not constitute a copyright violation, as users do not own their edits. Also, why are you concerned about recent statements like "What is the issue with it being a copy from the Origin of the Romanians?" I was genuinely asking what is wrong with that, and after receiving the answer I did not further press the issue. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Because attribution is not optional when you copy within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@DanCherek: This copyvio still remains: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22In+the+decades+following+the+1867+compromise%2C+minority+elites%2C+forced+to+choose+between+assimilation+or+exclusion%22&client=firefox-b-d

Finally, you requested revdel at [410]. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I understand that it was removed, but for future edits, would a paraphrasing like this [[411]] be all right? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That still looks like a lot of overlap to me, with several of the sentences largely unchanged from the source, and in other places some of the words were just replaced with synonyms but the overall sentence structure and word order remained. Anyone looking at that would pretty easily conclude that you started by copying the text over and then shuffled some words around. A good way to avoid close paraphrasing (click on that to read a helpful explanatory essay) is to read the source material, think about it for a bit, and then try to summarize it in your own words, from scratch, without directly referring to it. Of course you can look at it afterwards, but this might help avoid the temptation of using the same or substantially similar phrasing. DanCherek (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thank you. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

TLOTG, the edit in that diff looks to me like a good example of why you can't edit out copyvio: copyvio includes not just the words used in a given sentence but also the sentence structure and paragraph structure. Which means when you copy several paragraphs, then go through to reword phrases, switch them around, or find synonyms, even if you could possibly fix all the micro instances (and even if that were possible I promise you it would take more time than simply summarizing in your own words), you've still got the sentence/paragraph structure sitting there violating copyright.

So if I copy/pasted: The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog

And I edited it to: The agile chocolate-colored vulpine leapfrogs the indolent canine

And then saved, I've still got copyvio at the level of the sentence structure. And anyone familiar with that pangram would recognize it. The same goes for para structure. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

User:tgeorgescu is harassing me[edit]

While making an edit [[412]] about some dubious statements, tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) reverted me [[413]], I undo-ed his edits [[414]] saying "The tags have purpose, please see the talk page" as a discussion was made about this on the talk page (me and tgeorgescu (talk · contribs) didn't have any previous discussion to this, that was the first time I came into contact with him). He then reported me [[415]] on the basis of "It is clear that they push a nationalistic POV to the exclusion of all other POVs, while there is no WP:RS/AC on this matter. According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted". Being a "nationalistic POV" is his opinion, I have made the case in my response why this is not nationalistic POV but enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:RS/AC, the "exclusion of all other POVs" is something I have never done, you can check all of my diffs, however it can still be argued as his "opinion" even if there is no evidence for it.

But "According to them there is WP:THETRUTH of Romanian nationalism, and all WP:SCHOLARSHIP to the contrary should get doubted" is something I have literally never said, he is putting words into my mouth [[416]].

We then proceeded to discuss on the report page [[417]], he then found out that one of my edits (not related to the subject of the ongoing report) had a copy-pasted sentence [[418]], called me a "literally thief" [[419]] and proceeded to report me to Project Copyright Cleanup, again calling me a "literally thief" [[420]].

On the report page [[421]] I explained that I was not aware that that sentence wasn't paraphrased, and that I usually paraphrase the material I read to avoid copyright, and then proceeded to paraphrased the material in question myself. And on the Project Copyright page [[422]] explained that he didn't notify me about this so I can change it, and this is all an attempt to harass individuals listed here for evaluation.

He then found one other sentence [[423]] of a similar issue and proceeded to call me "They are not a literary thief, they are a serial literary thief".

While I was trying to paraphrase my edit so that it's compliant with Wikipedia's policy, he reverted my whole edit [[424]] saying "Go plagiarize elsewhere, you literary thief!!!!".

Then that [[425]] "Friend, it is a fact that you are a serial plagiarist". Lastly, while writing this report, I received a notification that he reported me here [[426]] for serial plagiarism. Despite me mentioning that this was not my intention, and any plagiarized material he finds will be paraphrased to not violate Wikipedia's policy. This is how stuff is added on Wikipedia, you find a book and write from it, but sometimes, especially when writing large paragraphs, I forget to paraphrase some parts, I don't believe this makes me a "literally thief" or "serial plagiarist".TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

While I am writing this large, many plagiarized phrases still remain at Magyarization. They did nothing to address this issue, instead they promise they will sometime later rephrase their plagiarism. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• but sometimes, especially when writing large paragraphs, I forget to paraphrase some parts, If that is the case, this text should be removed immediately. If you are copying (or close paraphrasing) text from another source, that is a copyright violation and we cannot have that. Your forgetfulness does not allow you to copy text inappropriately. That is not an excuse. If someone else removes it, you should not return the text unless you decide you wish to take the time to write your own original text. --Jayron32 14:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  This is precisely what I did, immediately after returning the text [[427]]. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Close paraphrasing is banned; copyvios still remain in the article, as stated in reply to DanCherek. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  About "Go plagiarize elsewhere, you literary thief!!!", AFAIK that is still a truthful statement, since you DID plagiarize. And you still think that it's fair game to revert me when I tell you that! tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu, namecalling isn't helpful here. Please stop calling other people thieves. I am not going to say this again. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee: I was not the first saying it's copyvio: see [428]. And I was infuriated by their denial The "In 1875, the government of Prime Minister Tisza intensified the program of forced magyarization, closing Slovak and Romanian-language schools and limiting minority cultural activities" is paraphrased (not copy-pasted, so no copyright violations) from a book written by historian Geoffrey Wawro in 2014. at [429]. So, yes, forgive me for namecalling, but their denial is infuriating. Seen that the most infuriating tactic is complete denial, I would even suspect they would be flamebaiting. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  TG, there is a difference between calling an edit plagiarism/copyvio and calling a person a thief. This is something that has been explained to you before w/re saying an editor must have a reading disability. We talk about edits here, not about editors. Valereee (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) You're conflating two unrelated issues here, tgeorgescu. That there are copyright violations has no bearing on whether or not you can violate Wikipedia policies on civility and personal attacks. You cannot. Regardless of what any other user does or does not do, you have no right to call them names. This is clear and unambiguous per WP:NPA. You will stop calling other people names or you will be sanctioned for that; even if the person who you called the name also did something wrong. Do you understand that? --Jayron32 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I understand. I will stick to "they did a copyvio". tgeorgescu (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Tgeorgescu Or, you can say "that text looks like a copyvio". You can omit mentioning the editor completely, and focus on the text. Do you see the difference in focus? 71.228.112.175 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have retracted the offending words with <s> and </s>. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  @TheLastOfTheGiants, I think what you're saying is that you copy, paste, then edit? You cannot edit out copyvo. The initial copy/paste/save introduces copyvio into Wikipedia, and that original copyvio cannot be fixed. It can only be removed completely. Never, never, never copy/paste/edit. Instead read, then type out an original statement that summarizes what you've read. I cannot emphasize enough that no one should be copying and pasting into Wikipedia, even if they edit before saving. You cannot edit out copyvio. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

  Read WP:FIXCLOSEPARA and follow that advice! — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Indef block[edit]

CCI is perpetually backlogged to no end, and someone that constantly violated copyright, even after it is explained, and then plagiarizes, even after it is explained, then wants to get back to it eventually.... maybe their are a net negative and just need to not be here. Because copyright has legal ramifications, that can lead to expensive problems as well as credibility problems, I just have no use for serial copyright violators, and would propose an indef block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:45, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support Why? After all those explanations about WP:NPA, see [430] and [431]. And [432] begins really promising indeffing. To me such attacks aren't new: Romanian nationalists indeffed due to my reports addressed similar charges against me, sometimes even curses. E.g. [433]. See? If I side with objective WP:SCHOLARSHIP, that makes me a traitor according to such nationalists. According to them, anyone who puts historical objectivity above the myth of the nation is defined as a traitor. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Short context: It is a subject of dispute whether elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population survived in Transylvania through the post-classical era becoming the ancestors of modern Romanians, the Daco-Roman Continuity Theory mainly accepted in Romanian histography, or the first Vlachs/Romanians appeared in the area in the 13th century after a northward migration from the Balkan Peninsula, the Immigrationist theory mainly accepted in Hungarian histography. There is an ongoing scholarly debate over the ethnicity of Transylvania's population before the Hungarian conquest.

  tgeorgescu is a supporter of the Immigrationist theory and perceives anything that remotely supports the Continuity Theory as "Romanian nationalism". "Romanian nationalism" is his version of "everyone who doesn't think like me is a nazi". The issue is that he doesn't side with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. In fact, when I posted a paragraph from a book written by an acclaimed American processor in 2014, his issue was that "Hungarians get the short end of the stick". Nevermind that it was a verifiable source written by an acclaimed professor, his issue was that he didn't like its contents, it had nothing to do with WP:SCHOLARSHIP. According to them, the Immigrationist POV is the only historical objectivity and all other POVs must be excluded. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  There is a difference between quoting a reputable professor for what he has to say about Hungarians, both good and bad, and selecting only those phrases from his work which make Hungarians look bad. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  His whole work makes Hungarians look bad. In an issue with no WP:RS/AC, WP:NPOV is applied. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Your way of bypassing this is by labeling everyone that disagrees with you a "Romanian nationalist". TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  His whole work makes Hungarians look bad. That's a keeper. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  It's a work about magyarization, the forced cultural assimilation of minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary. What do you think it says about the Hungarians? Once again I would like to point out tgeorgescu's discomfort that this verifiable work "makes the Hungarians look bad". I know 4 other works that say essentially the same thing about magyarization, with the newest from 2021 and oldest from 1996. But he doesn't care about WP:TRUTH. If he thinks that information is biased, he could easily post other works that he found who offer alternative views which would fit perfectly with WP:NPOV. But instead he doesn't. His issue is that this quote "anti-Hungarian" work exists in the first place. It's not about being anti-Hungarian or pro-Hungarian, it's about verifiability WP:TRUTH. Writing bad things about the Russian invasion of Ukraine is not "Western Propagnada" or "Russophobia" if that's what actually happened and they have been published previously by a reliable source. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  I understand that the reason I am here is because I didn't follow the guidelines and summarize it in my own words, and promise to work on that in the future in order to avoid copyright for Wikipedia. But the soruce itself is not questionable, it's also not cherry-picked as tgeorgescu would love to believe. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: reply to "someone that constantly violated copyright, even after it is explained, and then plagiarizes, even after it is explained, then wants to get back to it eventually" -> This is not what happened. I wrote those paragraphs. Then tgeorgescu reported me for one coyprighted sentence within that paragraph. I modified that sentence. Then he reported me for another. I again modified that sentence. And then it turns out in this discussion that most of those paragraphs were copyrighted, I did not object when DanCherek removed them and promised will follow the guidelines and summarize it in my own words in the future. I do not see where I kept violated copyright after it was explained to me. Tgeorgescu insists that the reason he called me thief was because they were "infuriated by their denial", but forgot to mention the fact that everytime he called me thief for plagiarizing a certain sentence, I removed it [[434]], [[435]] ,[[436]]. How could I possibly be "in denial" if after everytime I was called a thief because plagiarized sentence I went ahead and modified the plagiarized sentence? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 08:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• TheLastOfTheGiants, you have a serious problem with walls of text and WP:BLUDGEONing. Stop it. And no, do not reply to this. If you keep putting up walls of text, I will personally block you for that, as a WP:DE violation. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

  Seen what DanCherek wrote as summary at [437] and how TheLastOfTheGiants defended themself in the collapsed section above, TheLastOfTheGiants seems the least aware of what happened to the text, the least aware that whole paragraphs were plagiarized (instead of just two or three phrases which I have indicated). I mean, it was immediately obvious to DanCherek, but not to TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Love the fact how you aren't actually replying any of my points. How is that for concise text? TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support per comments from earlier today: "But whatever helps you sleep better at night and justifies you being an ahole", "Only retrated because the admins told you to, your character is as rotten as before", and tgeorgescu is a pathological liar and a cheat" and so on. 200 edits, copyvio problems, still doesn't seem to get the point about not copy-paste-edit-ing, plus a series of personal attacks? Yes, somebody please just indef this editor. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Gross personal attacks redacted, LoTG indeffed after a self-immolation. Acroterion (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Terminator-I'll be back on YouTube: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheLastOfTheGiants. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• 31.208.84.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Zinaida Serebriakova (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Can someone please take action on this IP, who has been repeatedly making disruptive edits including unsourced changes on the linked article, all while ignoring any warnings they receive? Jalen Folf (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

IP is also actively removing content without explanation at Ilya Repin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). This really needs to be handled and fast!!! Jalen Folf (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they've decided to hop IPs and have now started to edit from 46.162.96.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm opting not to revert their latest efforts to give myself a break after a hectic night, but if anyone can evaluate the efforts and take action as needed, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! Jalen Folf (talk) 18:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Zinaida Serebriakova and Ilya Repin. If the issue spreads to more articles, IP blocks should also be considered. Both of these painters were born in what is now Ukraine, and at least one of the IP edits was removing a 'lang-uk' template. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Megacheez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On Keylon Kincade: Nearly every edit this editor has made--I mean hundreds of them--has been unsourced. Often to biographies of living people. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Megacheez, why are you not providing citations for your contributions? Specifically, which source(s) did you use for Special:Diff/1101280271, your number addition to the Bob Kilcullen article? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

As one example, see this recent unsourced edit at Kauffman Stadium. When I looked at talk page, I found these previous warnings just from me!:

• March 28, 2020 - I added "Only a small portion of your edit was supported by the sources cited. Please stop your disruptive editing."
• June 18, 2017 - specifically about a stadium
• June 18, 2017 - specifically about a stadium.

Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looking at their talk page and block log, this honestly feels like a very long term WP:CIR issue. I don't see getting out of this short of an indef. We can't fix this, we can only prevent it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'll do it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: This editor is now using User:103.213.129.141. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what's going on with this editor. I assume they are either a sockpuppet or a single-purpose account that was apparently trying to get past semi-protection to edit my ... um, not-protected user talk page ... to post what looks like a makeshift template per this edit. (As far as I know, there is no template for this, but am aware of a similar template when someone is running in an RfA.) I'm not going to throw any other assumptions here, but I think the fact that ... per Drodit's contributions list, they performed their first 13 edits in about a 15-minute span on various pages including ones related to The Wikipedia Adventure, then post that template on my page and haven't edited since ... speaks for itself. Anyways, I'm taking this directly here instead of posting warning since I could not find a warning template appropriate for such a situation. Steel1943 (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Obvious troll blocked Girth Summit _(blether) 11:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Past the point of productive discourse. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 20:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apparently, I have a "moral obligation to help clean up the mess". Despite working on cleaning up said mess for the last 6 months, that hasn't helped, and it's even harder to do with an indef block. In a case about conduct in deletion discussion, votes are made with rationales on anything but condcut in deletion discussions. It used to be fun to create stuff, then the rules kept changing. Deletion monkeys spend their time at guideline/policy talkpages, playing with their own fecal matter, rather than actually creating, adding and expanding content. Despite the token "(I) genuinely hope that I see them back on Wikipedia after a successful appeal" I'm not going to wait until August 2023 to write a begging letter to a group of users who couldn't care less. About a year after joining the project, I started creating articles. Some early creations from 2007 got tagged as copyvios. A year later, they were still being tagged. I got added to some white-list at the time, and avoided adding OBVIOUS copyvios and further scrutiny, but made no attempt to either stop or remove the ones I added. Guess what - that continued since then. Not just across the 93,000+ articles I created, but across the 1.5 million edits I made too. Tens of thousands (a low-end estimate) now have these issues. Have a look at any film article from before 1930, for example. And that's before I mention the countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views. Was that person born on 21 June, or was it 12 June? So that moral obligation? Ha. Good luck with that. "The mess" is now your mess and the burden falls with YOU to fix it. Enjoy. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Admins, could we please get a block here without waiting for the ArbCom decision? There's the issues Lugnuts mentioned above and also their personal attack in recent contribs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Took the words right out of my mouth. Practically begging for revdel. GabberFlasted (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) The only incident I see in the above is potentially a user asking to be blocked and for his contributions to be nuked. Then maybe he wont be able to brag on the internet about his 1.5 million "edits". Sincerely, a deletion monkey. nableezy - 18:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Did I see a hidden message in the reverse order, of the last few pages that were edited? GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Doesnt seem especially hidden. Legit, indef block now please, then figure out what to do with his "contributions". nableezy - 18:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Perceptive as always, what would we do without you? JBL (talk) 20:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Yep. I'd recommend suppressing at each page so the logs are not visible. Jip Orlando (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Comments like "Deletion monkeys" shows a complete failure of what is needed to work collectively. Hopefully this is just blowing of steam, and Lugnets will return in a more collegial frame of mind. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:16, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Should fully protect his talk page, then rename the account to "banned user #ur8y876487" or something to disallow that trophy of look at all the edits I made. nableezy - 18:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I have indefinitely blocked Lugnuts as no longer here to build an encyclopedia. I have no opinion at this time about other steps to take. Cullen328 (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks. Looks like Primefac took care of the personal attack (thanks to you too!). I don't think this section needs to stay up any longer. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks Cullen328, thanks Primefac. Close, punt to archives if worth keeping, or straight up delete this section. Streisand, and all. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Idk, he basically said that across his 1.5 million edits are an untold number of intentional copyright violations. That seems like something that needs further discussion. nableezy - 19:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) That's not how I read it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC) By my reading he did say that, but I suspect it's trolling rather than an actual admission that Lugnuts has never been here to build an encyclopedia. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC) It's not really clear what he meant, but I don't think he was claiming it was all copyvios. He mentioned being flagged for copyvio when he first started, and seemed upset about that. I think the rest of the statement was more a "good luck undoing all my work, you don't realize how much I've done" taunt. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Not just copyright violations, but intentional errors. "And that's before I mention the countless deliberate errors on pages that have very few pages views. Was that person born on 21 June, or was it 12 June?" Afheather (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC) He's trying to stir us up by claiming we can't trust any of his edits now, and there's too many for us to check. He's trolling us. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Should take him at his word and delete everything possible with reckless abandon then. nableezy - 20:39, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Recommend this discussion be closed, hatted & collapsed. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Lugnuts[edit] Shortly before being blocked indefinitely, prolific article creator Lugnuts posted a message. He claims that he's included copyvio in tens of thousands of articles. I just posted a request at Contributor copyright investigations, and I'm posting this here for both visibility and in case there are steps outside of the CCI process for admins or other community members to undergo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC) See above, this doesn't seem to be him claiming copyvios, but more a "good luck undoing my millions of edits" taunt. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Can we delete their userpage(s) so it doesn't become a memorial or badge of honour? >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 19:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I can see the reason in your reading, but I'm still seeing it as a copyvio claim, in addition to the "deliberate errors". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:30, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Yes, it's simply that he's taking the prospective ArbCom decision pretty hard. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Likely because one of the remedies that's passing is an indef-ban of Lugnuts, with annual appeals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 19:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC) I too would like to make a pointless stand-alone section about Lugnuts[edit] Thanks for reading. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC) Ouch! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC) One time I had a lugnut get stuck on my car and I broke off the wheel stud trying to get it off. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)